Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Lanarkshire Tramways Order Confirmation Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

NEW WRIT.

For the Borough of Rhondda (West Division), in the room of the right hon. WILLIAM ABRAHAM (Manor of North-stead).—[Mr. Tyson Wilson.]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

DYE-STUFFS.

Mr. LAMBERT: 2.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state for 11 months of this year the value of the dyes imported into this country and the value of the exports of textile goods which require dyes in their manufacture?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir P. Lloyd-Greame): The particulars for November are not yet available, but I will have a statement covering the trade of the first 10 months of the year printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I may add that, in a number of cases, goods in the making of which dyes have been used and others which may involve no use of dyes are included under a single heading, so that the statement necessarily covers some goods which do not fall within the description set forth in the question.

Mr. MARSHALL STEVENS: Will the hon Gentleman in making the return distinguish between German dyes sent to
this country by way of reparation and those imported in the ordinary way of business?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I do not think I can do that in the return I am getting out for the convenience of the House for to-morrow's Debate. But if my hon. Friend wants any particular information and will put down a question I will see if I can get it.

Mr. LAMBERT: Will the information be out to-morrow morning?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Yes; it will be printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. STEVENS: May we have the amount received by the Government by way of reparation imported into this country and in stock here now?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: As a matter of fact, if my hon. Friend will read the OFFICIAL REPORT, he will see I have given that figure before. If he wants the figure for any particular day, perhaps he will put down a question.

Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: Have we yet received any goods from Germany by way of reparation, and, if so, what quantity?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: We have received a large number of dye-stuffs from Germany under the Reparation Clause The hon. Gentleman cannot expect me to carry in my head the precise amount,

Mr. A. SHORT: Will the hon. Gentleman see that this information is at the disposal of the House before we begin to debate the new Bill to-morrow?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: If my hon. Friend will consult the OFFICIAL REPORT, he will find that I have already given the, total amount received from Germany, and he knows that if he wants any particular figure he has only to put down a question to get it.

The following is the statement referred to:

Value of dyes, dye-stuffs and extracts for dyeing registered as having been imported into the United Kingdom from all sources during the first 10 months of 1920:

Import List Description.
Value.



£


Intermediate coal tar products used in the manufacture of dyes (including aniline oil and salt, and phenylglycine)
636,068


Finished dye-stuffs obtained from coal tar
5,267,076


Extracts for dyeing
1,484,786


Natural indigo
93,522


Total
£7,481,452

Exports from the United Kingdom of textile goods, in the manufacture of which dyes have been or may have been used, for first 10 months, 1920.

Export List Description.
Value.



£


Cotton:



Yarn, bleached and dyed Piece goods, printed:
6,613,514


Flags, handkerchiefs and shawls in the piece
695,605


Other sorts
52,705,291


Piece goods dyed in the piece
77,939,926


Piece goods manufactured wholly or in part of dyed yarn and commonly known as coloured cottons
15.977,559


Flags, handkerchiefs and shawls



Not in the piece, printed
1,434,773


Other sorts
2,491,578


Small wares, including ribbons and trimmings
869,697


Other manufactures of cotton
7,332,080


Woollen and worsted yarns
15,028,639


Woollen tissues
64,820,921


Worsted tissues
22,935,940


Damasks, tapestry and other furniture stuffs
75,234


Wool and mohair plushes
955,573


Flannels and delaines
1,053,926


Blankets
1,231,744


Travelling rugs, coverlets and wrappers
392,808


Small wares and other manufactures of wool or worsted
1,219,957


Carpets, carpeting and rugs of wool (with wool or jute backs)
3,617,726


Spun silk yarn
585,153

Silk manufactures: Wholly of silk
£


Broadstuffs, dyed or not dyed
1,242,201


Lace and articles thereof (except embroidery)
204,445


Ribbons
116,561


Of silk mixed with other materials if known as silks:



Broadstuffs
1,408,191


Lace and articles thereof(except embroidery)
55,754


Ribbons
35,680


Other manufactures of silk or of silk mixed with other materials if known as "silks" (except apparel)
871,125


Linen piece goods: Checked, printed or dyed and damask or diaper
1,406,363


Jute yarn
2,217,003


Jute manufactures (other than cordage, cables, ropes and twine):



Piece goods
6,057,233


Carpets and rugs
190,424


Other sorts (except bags)
775,977


Apparel, not of fur:



Outer garments, men's and boy's (excluding overcoats) of wool, or of wool mixed with other materials
5,169,233


All other kinds of garments (not proofed)
10,402,028


Haberdashery (soft) and millinery (except hats, bonnets, caps and other headgear, embroidery and needlework
415,894


Gloves of woven fabric
106,814


Hats, bonnets, caps and other headgear other than of straw and felt
780,197


Hosiery (knitted, netted or crocheted goods), stockings and hose:



Of cotton, or of which the chief value is cotton
1,656,255


Of wool, or of which the chief value is wool
4,000,595


Underwear and fancy hosiery: Of cotton, or of which the chief value is cotton
798,413


Of wool, or of which the chief value is wool
1,702,621


Embroidery and needlework (except linen embroidery)
180,245


Total of the above
317,770,896

Mr. GALBRAITH: 10.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what has been the increase in the cost of production of dyestuffs since 1913 in respect of labour, materials, and overhead charges, respectively?

Mr. GLANVILLE: 5.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can say, in respect of the principal dyestuffs, what has been the increase in price since 1913?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The dye-making industry is one of great complexity and its products embrace a wide range of classes of dyes and many different individual dyes within each class. The conditions of manufacture and the nature of the intermediates and other materials required are very diverse and the costs of production and prices vary accordingly. An all-over percentage figure showing the movement of prices and costs would have little significance, but I will communicate to both hon. Members a statement showing the movement of the prices of some representative

The following are the statistics mentioned:


A STATEMENT showing the Imports into the United Kingdom of the undermentioned Intermediates and Finished Dyestuffs, distinguishing the countries whence consigned, registered during the period 1st January to 30th September, 1920.


—
Intermediate coal tar products used in the manufacture of dyes(including aniline oil and salt and phenylglycine).
Finished Dyestuffs obtained from Coal Tar.


Alizarine.
Indigo-synthetic.
Other Sorts.




Cwts.
£
Cwts.
£
Cwts.
£
Cwts.
£


Sweden
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
402
5,562


Norway
…
3
45
—
—
—
—
—
—


Denmark
…
6
222
—
—
—
—
8
276


Germany
…
950
23,805
3,146
126,469
2,940
55,573
24,451
1,1193,180


Netherlands
…
410
7,628
1,373
97,102
320
19,385
18,262
897,517


Belgium
…
325
549
95
1,143
—
—
8,463
269,173


France
…
1,222
5,533
23
2,810
103
5,500
128
2,859


Switzerland
…
355
14,995
—
—
33
949
45,410
1,521,639


Spain
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
2
574


Austria-Hungary
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
30
1,729


Egypt
…
—
—
5
290
—
—
5
435


British India
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
80
190


Japan
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
9
106


Canada
…
3
125
—
—
—
—
1
76


United States
…
30,189
455,489
177
4,668
6
239
11,827
433,730


Argentine Republic
…
4
90
—
—
—
—
—
—




33,467
508,481
4,819
232,482
3,402
81,646
109,078
4,327,046


Intermediates and Dyestuffs consigned from the Netherlands and Belgium are no doubt mainly of German origin.

dyestuffs. The cost of production, even if available, would have little significance.

Mr. GALBRAITH: 11.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state for the 11 months of this year from what countries dyes were imported into this country and the value of the dyes so imported from each country, respectively?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I am having printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT statistics relating to the importation of dyestuffs during the first nine months of this year. Information beyond the end of September is not yet available.

Sir W. PEARCE: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us if the imports -for September amounted to nearly. 1,000 tons of the value of nearly a million pounds?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I had rather the hon. Member waited to see the table I am publishing. There is not the least doubt that the importation has been progressive, and increasing very rapidly

Mr. GALBRAITH: 12.
asked the President of the Board of Trade why no pro vision is made in the Dyestuffs (Import Regulation) Bill for any representation of the Board in the merchant interests which will chiefly be concerned in the obtaining of the necessary import licences?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I am not prepared to accept the interpretation put by the hon. Member on Sub-section (2) of Clause 2 of the Dyestuffs (Import Regulation) Bill, but the matter is one which can be more conveniently discussed during the Committee stage. I am sure the hon. Member will appreciate that it is impracticable to discuss by question and answer the constitution of the Committee, which will be fully considered when the Bill is under discussion.

Mr. KENYON: 13.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the dye- stuffs imported from Germany on account of reparation are selected dyestuffs; if so, what body makes the selection and who are the individuals composing the body; what body in this country receives and allocates the dyestuffs; and what principles govern the distribution?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The dyestuffs received from Germany on account of reparation have been selected by the Board of Trade in consultation with representatives of dye users and dye makers. The dyestuffs are received by the Central Importing Agency on behalf of the Board of Trade, and that agency allocates the supplies in accordance with instructions given by the Board of Trade from time to time, such allocation being made, so far as practicable, in accordance with the requirements of the individual consumers as notified by them to the Board.

Mr. KENYON: 14.
asked the President of the Board of Trade who are the Government directors of the British Dyestuffs Corporation; and what are their duties, who appoints them, and to whom are they responsible?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The present Government directors of the British Dye-stuffs Corporation, Limited, are the Right Hon. Lord Ashfield and Sir Henry Birchenough, Bart., K.C.M.G. They are appointed by the President of the Board of Trade, and have certain special powers in addition to the ordinary powers of
directors. I will have printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT the relevant extracts from the Articles of Association.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Are these directors paid by the Government or by the corporation?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: By the corporation, and not by the Government.

The following are the extracts referred to:—

MEMORANDUM AND ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION OF BRITISH DYESTOFFS CORPORATION, LTD.

Article No. 94.

94. Unless and until the Board of Trade shall otherwise determine the following provisions shall apply: —

(a) Government Directors.—Two of the directors shall be persons appointed by the Board of Trade, and each of them and his successor for the time being in office appointed under this Sub-clause shall be called a Government director. A Government director shall not require any qualification and shall be entitled to hold office for three years unless previously removed by the Board of Trade, and accordingly shall not be bound to retire by rotation nor be liable to be removed from office by an extraordinary resolution of the company or be liable to the operation of paragraphs (d) or (f) of Article 101. The Board of Trade may from time to time remove a Government director. Upon the death of or vacation of office by a Government director the Board of Trade shall be at liberty to appoint another director in his place, and any such appointment or removal shall be in writing served on the company and signed by the President of the Board of Trade for the time being. A retiring Government director shall be eligible for re-appointment. If there shall be only one Government director in office he shall be entitled to exercise all the powers of the Government directors.
(b)Power of Government Directors.—The Government directors jointly or if only one be present at a board meeting then that Director shall in addition to their or his ordinary votes or vote as directors or director have absolute power to veto any proposal or resolution of the board the result of which if carried into effect would having due regard to the main object with which the company has been formed in their or his opinion tend to encroach unduly on the trade or business of any British manufacturers of products other than dyes or colours or to give undue preference as regards supply price or otherwise to any customer or consumer of the company's products and to veto the formation or making of any contract or agreement between the company and any foreign
1703
competitor of the company provided always that such veto shall not be used in such a manner as to prevent the manufacture or rendering marketable of products incidental to the manufacture of dyes or colours.

Major ENTWISTLE: 17.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether a Committee has been set up inquiring into supplies, costs, and profits in the dyestuff industry; how many meetings have been held; from whom evidence was taken; and whether he has seen the evidence in question?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: A Sub-committee of the Standing Committee on Trusts has been appointed to ascertain to what extent supplies, prices, and costs of dyes and dyestuffs in this country, and profits thereon, are affected by any trade combination, and, further, to ascertain to what extent the processes of dyeing, finishing, bleaching, and printing are affected by any trade combination, and to investigate the effect of any such trade combination, if found, upon supplies, prices, costs, and profits at all stages of such processes. I am informed that this Committee have held sixteen meetings, and that evidence has been taken from dye makers, consumers, and others. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

Major ENTWISTLE: May I ask whether it is not a fact that this Committee inquired into other matters than mere profiteering, whether the ground that they covered is not the same as the ground covered by the Bill, and whether this information should not be available before the Bill is proceeded with in this House?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Until I receive the Report of the Committee, I am not able to say what scope is covered in the inquiry. I have read to the House the Committee's terms of reference, and I imagine that the inquiry will have been in accordance with those terms of reference.

Major ENTWISTLE: Does not the hon. and gallant Gentleman consider that it should have been his business to find out about the proceedings of this Committee before bringing a Bill before the House?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: No, Sir, I do not. I consider that it was the business of the Board of Trade to give effect to
the pledges given by His Majesty's Government both before and during the last Election. The findings of this Committee will be, no doubt, as valuable after we have redeemed our pledges as before.

Mr. RAWLINSON: Has the evidence given before this Committee been printed, or will it be printed?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: It is certainly not published yet.

Mr. RAWLINSON: Is it printed?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I do not think so. It may have been printed or typed for circulation to the members of the Committee. I think that the House is rather under a misapprehension as to the procedure of this Committee. The Central Committee appoints sub-committees to deal with these questions, and until a sub-committee makes its report to the Central Committee, and that report is forwarded by the Central Committee to the Board of Trade, it really does not come under our jurisdiction at all.

Major ENTWISTLE: 18.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether it is the policy of the Government to exclude dyestuffs from America, Switzerland, and France; whether, during the War, these counties assisted materially in maintaining the supply of dyestuffs for this country; and whether this is the best method of establishing cordial trade relations with Allies and friendly neutrals?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The provisions of the Bill are general. I am fully aware of the assistance which was rendered during the War as regards the supply of dyestuffs by Switzerland and, to a much smaller degree, by the United States and France. As regards the last two countries, however, I would point out that the obligation was reciprocal, and that the British industry was able to be of very substantial assistance to consumers in those countries, whilst, as regards Switzerland, the industry was largely maintained by supplies of materials from this country. I would further point out that both France and especially the United States, in particular, are taking active measures to safeguard the development of domestic dyemaking industries either by prohibition or increased tariffs.

Mr. BRIANT: 20.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any representations have been received from users of dyestuffs adverse to the principles embodied in the Dyestuffs (Import Regulation) Bill; if so, from what persons or firms they have been received; and what was their nature?

Mr. ACLAND: 9.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received any representations from the Calico Printers' Association and the dyers of leather goods on the subject of the restriction of imports of dyestuffs; and, if so, what is the nature of the representations?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I have received representations from the Calico Printers' Association and Messrs. J. & J. Crombie, Limited, who are opposed to the general policy laid down in the Dyestuffs (Import Regulation) Bill, on the ground that, if carried into effect, it might place difficulties in the way of their obtaining any kind of dyestuff required by them at the lowest possible prices. Such representations as I have received from the Federation of Curriers, Light Leather Tanners and Dressers, Incorporated, related, not to the proposals contained in the Bill, but to the present general shortage of certain dyes. I ought, however, to add that the Calico Printers' Federation has passed a resolution endorsing the action taken by the Colour Users' Association.

Major BARNES: 61.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Dewsbury Chamber of Commerce, which represents the heavy woollen dye trade, the largest users of dyestuffs in the country, were consulted as to the provisions of the Dyestuffs (Import Regulation) Bill, and expressed its approval?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: No chambers of commerce have been consulted regarding the Bill to which the hon. and gallant Member refers, but a large number of the users in the Dewsbury districts are members of the Colour Users' Association, which has been consulted throughout and which has expressed its approval of the principles of the Bill.

GERMAN GOODS.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALL: 3.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state approximately the number
of persons at present unemployed for whom work could be found if the glassware, toys, and dyestuffs, now being imported from Germany and sold at prices which undercut the British market owing to lower labour costs and the abnormal exchange, were manufactured in this country instead of being imported?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I have been asked to answer this question. Manufacture in this country would undoubtedly increase the amount of employment for persons directly engaged in the industries mentioned. But I do not think it would be possible to give any certain estimate on the lines suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend.

Sir F. HALL: If it is admitted by the Government there would be employment found for a large number of people in this country, does the hon. Gentleman not think it is time the Government took steps to protect industries which they particularly asked manufacturers in this country to undertake—and particularly the manufacture of toys?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The question refers to glassware, toys, and dyestuffs. With regard to dyestuffs, the House will deal with a Bill on that subject to-morrow. My hon. Friend knows that a Bill dealing with other key industries is to be introduced at the beginning of next Session. I only wish a repetition of questions would increase the Parliamentary time at my disposal.

Colonel C. LOWTHER: Is it not a fact that the glass, toy and dye industries are in dire distress owing to German dumping at the present moment?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: No, Sir. One of the difficulties of the situation is that there is no dumping going on at the present moment, and German goods sold here are not cheaper than they are sold in Germany, but dearer.

Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: Is it not the fact that the rates of exchange are a far worse peril than dumping? Are not these particular industries actually going to close down in the next two or three months unless something is done? Are you going to wait for that?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: My hon. Friend must appreciate that it is impossible to deal with more than one par-
liamentary measure at a time. It is no good introducing a Bill which cannot be passed this Session. The Government are committed to introducing a Bill early next Session dealing with dumping and key industries, and I should be misleading the House if I were to promise now to bring in a Bill which I could not hope to pass this Session.

Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: Does that mean that the question of the German exchange—

Mr. SPEAKER: I must really enter a protest against this customary Monday attack of "fiscalitis."

Sir F. HALL: Is it not within the province of the Member to put supplementary questions on important matters at Question Time?

Mr. SPEAKER: Some of these supplementary questions are not intended to elicit information at all, but for purposes of Debate. They are put by one section of the House to show how wrong are the views held by the other section

TUNGSTEN ORES.

Mr. WIGNALL: 21.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if the Government has purchased, or is under any obligation to purchase, tungsten ores from Empire or foreign sources; if so, what tonnage has been acquired from 1st January to 31st October, 1920; what price per unit has been paid for such ores; and what stocks are held by the Government either abroad or in this country?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Mr. James Hope): I have been asked to answer this question. The Government made extensive purchases of tungsten ore during the War, but is no longer under any obligation to purchase such ore either from Empire or foreign sources. As a result of contracts entered into during the War, approximately 1,271 tons of tungsten ores have been received from Australia during the present year, but it is not desirable to give the prices. The unsold stocks held by the Government at present of wolfram and molybdenite do not exceed 200 tons.

ZINC CONCENTRATES.

Mr. WIGNALL: 22.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Gov-
ernment is still continuing to purchase Australian zinc concentrates; if so, what tonnage has been acquired and paid for from 1st January to 31st October, 1920; what stocks are held by the Government, either in this country or Australia; and what steps are being taken by the Government to purchase the home production of zinc concentrates on as favourable terms as are being paid to the Australian Commonwealth producers?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The Government are under agreement to purchase Australian zinc concentrates for a period of ten years next following the declaration of peace, but production has been suspended at Broken Hill during the past 12 months owing to a strike, and no concentrates have been acquired since 1st January, 1920. Stocks of concentrates are held in Australia by His Majesty's Government amounting to 503,000 tons. As regards the last part of the question, I am not prepared to recommend any extension of the buying operations of His Majesty's Government.

Mr. WIGNALL: May I ask, in view of the serious condition of the spelter trade, whether the zinc concentrates from Australia are likely to be imported for use in this country, or have all the stocks accumulated on the other side?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: We shall certainly make use of them as we can get them. As I have explained, the production is being suspended owing to the strike there, but we shall certainly make the best possible use of any of these concentrates that we are under contract to buy.

Mr. WIGNALL: Is it not a fact that there are enormous stocks in Australia at the present time awaiting shipment, and is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the whole of the spelter trade of this country has been closed down for the last three or four months for want of raw material?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I will go into that question, but I think there are a good many other considerations affecting the spelter trade besides this precise contract in Australia.

DUMPING.

Captain TERRELL: 24.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether
there have been brought to his notice recently any instances of the underselling of British-manufactured goods by foreign imports; whether such underselling has caused any prejudicial effect on employment in this country; and, if so, in what direction and to what extent?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I have received numerous complaints of the underselling of British-manufactured goods by foreign imports, but it is not possible in an answer to review the whole position.

ELECTRICAL POWER, RIVER RHINE.

Mr. GILBERT: 38.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the project for canalising the Rhine between Basle and Strassburg for the purpose of producing electrical power, which proposal is reported to be favoured by the French and German Governments; whether he is aware that the construction of such a canal would greatly injure, if not stop, a considerable traffic in merchandise between Switzerland and this country which now comes by the Rhine, and that the project is strongly objected to in Switzerland from this point of view; whether Great Britain has any representation in the control of the Rhine; and whether, having regard to the importance to British trade of the preservation of the free navigation of this important river, he will state if any steps are being taken by the Government in order to safeguard British trade interests in the event of this canal being constructed?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Lloyd George): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. In regard to the second, I would draw my hon. Friend's attention to Article 358 of the Treaty of Peace with Germany, which, while giving France the right to take water from the Rhine, provides that the exercise of this right shall not interfere with navigation and that all proposed hydro-technical schemes shall be laid for approval before the Central Commission of the Rhine. The Central Commission includes representatives of Great Britain, whose attention has been directed to the considerations mentioned by the hon. Member.

FABRIC GLOVE INDUSTRY.

Mr. HURD: 39.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the November monthly report to the Board of Trade from Somerset glove manufacturers, showing that, owing to German competition on a basis of prices far below the British cost of production, branches employing home-workers in the villages have been closed, while short time and unemployment in the factories of Frome and other towns are increasing; whether this Frome industry was created at great expense during the War upon Government encouragement as a permanent means of employment; and what action does the Government propose to take to obviate even greater loss and unemployment during the present winter?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have not seen the particular report to which my hon. Friend refers (which I understand has not been made to the Board of Trade), but the position of the fabric glove industry has been constantly receiving the attention of the Government. I regret that I can add nothing to the statements already made in this House as to the legislation proposed to be introduced early next Session.

Mr. HURD: Will the right hon. Gentleman reply to the second part of my question? Does he not think that during the present winter some special obligation does arise to safeguard employment in this industry, seeing that it was created as a War-time industry, at the instigation of the Government, for national purposes?

The PRIME MINISTER: We have only a little over two weeks before Christmas, and we cannot in the course of that time carry legislation of this character.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

FISHERMEN'S WIDOWS.

Colonel BURN: 25.
asked the Prime Minister if he is aware that some widows of fishermen whose husbands lost their lives during the War through enemy action are now only receiving 5s. or 6s. a week, owing to the insurance money being exhausted; and will he consider bringing the pensions of fishermen's dependants in line with those of the Mercantile Marine as regards pensions?

The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to replies which I gave to similar questions on the 22nd November last.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask whether these men were not encouraged to pursue their calling, in spite of the danger, during the War, and does not the right hon. Gentleman think it just that the widows of those men who were killed should receive the same treatment as in the case of the Mercantile Marine?

The PRIME MINISTER: If my hon. and gallant Friend would look at the answer given on the previous occasion— of which I will send him a copy—he will see that that point was dealt with.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

MANDATES.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 26.
asked the Prime Minister whether the proposed terms of the mandates to be assumed by the British Empire will be submitted to this House; and, if so, whether the terms will be submitted to this House before being laid before the Council of the League of Nations or afterwards?

The PRIME MINISTER: I can add nothing to the answer which I gave to a question on this subject on Thursday last.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: If it is intended to lay the mandates before this House after approval by the Council of the League of Nations, will it not mean that we shall be unable in any way to modify those mandates, and will not the whole thing be really a farce, unless the mandates are laid before this House before going to the Council of the League? Otherwise, why waste our time?

FISHING INDUSTRY.

Major ENTWISTLE: 28.
asked the Prime Minister if he intends to carry out the recommendation made by the general conference of the International Labour Organisation of the League of Nations concerning the limitation of hours of work in the fishing industry; and, if so, at what date?

Sir J. D. REES: 42.
asked the Prime Minister whether the International Labour Organisation of the League of Nations has proposed limitations of the hours of work in the fishing industry; and whether the Government will abstain from accepting any recommendation dealing with an industry carried on under widely differing conditions in the seven seas and well able to look after itself in all of them?

Lieut.-Colonel Sir R. SANDERS (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to answer this question. The recommendation referred to is under the consideration of the Government, and I am not in a position to make any statement at the present moment.

BRITISH REPRESENTATIVES (INSTRUCTIONS).

Captain TUDOR-REES: 32.
asked the Prime Minister whether the representatives of this country at the meetings of the League of Nations are given instructions by the Government as to the way in which they are to vote; and whether the proposal of one of such representatives, made recently at Geneva, to admit Germany into the League was made with the approval of the Government?

The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply which I gave to a similar question on Thursday last.

WOMEN DELEGATES.

Mr. HURD: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the dearth of women delegates at the Assembly of the League of Nations at Geneva; and whether, seeing how many of the questions under discussion at the assembly especially affect women, His Majesty's Government will select a fully representative British woman to be one of the British delegates at the next assembly?

The PRIME MINISTER: As the date of the next meeting of the Assembly of the League of Nations has not yet been considered, it would, I think, be premature to consider the composition of the delegation.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (BRITISH GOODS).

Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: 27.
asked the Prime Minister if he will give instructions
to all State Departments to order only British goods so long as there is unemployment in this country?

The PRIME MINISTER: General instructions are already in force to give preference in contracts by British Government Departments to products of the Empire. It would not be possible to lay down a universal rule framed in the terms of the question, as certain foreign products have to be imported; but the Government are in full sympathy with its general tenor.

Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this practice has not been followed in the Post Office, but that, whereas British pencils were used during the latter part of the War period, they are once more buying from the United States?

Mr. BILLING: Will the right hon. Gentleman call for a report from all his Departments, and lay it on the Table of this House, - as to what, if any, foreign goods they are purchasing which could be purchased in this country?

The PRIME MINISTER: I will consider that.

Mr. LAMBERT: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the British taxpayer too?

The PRIME MINISTER: I think we should be considering the British taxpayer by seeing that they get employment instead of unemployment benefit.

Commander Sir E. NICHOLL: Will the right hon. Gentleman use his influence with the President of the Board of Trade to see that foreign imports from recent enemy countries are marked so that people shall not be disappointed when they buy something which they think is English, but which is really foreign?

Oral Answers to Questions — IRELAND.

MILITARY OPERATIONS.

Commander Viscount CURZON: 29.
asked the Prime Minister whether the operations of the forces in Ireland have received, or are receiving, the attention of the Imperial General Staff?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: (the Financial Secretary, War Office): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. At the present time actual military operations in the true sense of the term are not in progress, the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief merely providing such assistance to the police as he is called upon to supply from time to time by the Irish Government. In these circumstances the functions of the Imperial General Staff arc limited to the consideration of the various requirements in personnel and material which the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief may demand.

SINN FEIN OUTRAGES.

Sir JOHN BUTCHER: 35.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the violent Sinn Fein propaganda in this country, in the United States, and other countries, and of the many false and misleading reports that appear in a section of the Press, gravely reflecting on the action of the military and police in Ireland and on the Irish Government, he will arrange that an official weekly précis of the outrages on soldiers and police during the previous week, and of the general situation in Ireland, be issued and made available for publication in the home and foreign Press?

The PRIME MINISTER: My hon. and learned Friend will be glad to learn that this is already being done.

SETTLEMENT PROPOSALS.

Mr. HOGGE: 57.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can make a statement with regard to his negotiations with the Sinn Fein leaders?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have no statement to make on the subject beyond repeating the willingness of the Government to explore every avenue which might lead to a real and lasting settlement with Ireland.

Mr. HOGGE: Is there anything hopeful in what is reported in the Press with regard to negotiations with a view to a settlement? Can the right hon. Gentleman say that without committing himself to details?

Mr. DEVLIN: Has the right hon. Gentleman received and replied to the telegram from Father O'Flanagan, who is at present the only spokesman of Sinn Fein who is not in prison?

Mr. MOLES: Before replying to that question will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he has seen a statement from the Sinn Fein Council this morning, which declares that any person purporting to enter into negotiations with the British Government will be regarded by the Council as a traitor, and dealt with accordingly?

Mr. MacVEAGH: Neither has the hon. Member. He saw it on the tape.

The PRIME MINISTER: I have no doubt that if anything of the kind has been issued it would be brought to my notice, but I should regret it very much. With regard to the telegram referred to by my hon. Friend, I received it only about an hour ago, and I should consider the reply which is to be given.

Major O'NEILL: In order to clear up misapprehensions, may I ask whether the Government have or have not any alternative with regard to Irish policy apart from that already sanctioned by this House in the Government of Ireland Bill?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Docs the right hon. Gentleman consider Father O'Flanagan as a Sinn Feiner on the bridge, able to speak for the Sinn Fein party? Has the right hon. Gentleman not declared that it will be his policy to negotiate with any representative Sinn Feiner?

The PRIME MINISTER: That is what we want to find out. If I may very respectfully suggest it to the House, I do not think it will be very helpful if there be too many conflicting questions on the subject.

Mr. HOGGE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he is hopeful with regard to negotiations being kept open?

The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot say anything beyond what I have said repeatedly in this House and outside—that the Government are willing to discuss with anybody who is authorised to speak on behalf of Irish opinion any question which will bring peace to Ireland.

Major O'NEILL: May I press the right hon. Gentleman for an answer to my question, namely, whether the Government have or have not a different policy, with regard to Ireland, from that already sanctioned by this House?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have repeatedly stated in this House the policy of the Government in reference to the Bill and in reference to negotiations, and I do not think it would be possible for me to say more in the course of an answer to a supplementary question.

Oral Answers to Questions — COMMITTEE OF IMPEEIAL DEFENCE.

Viscount CURZON: 30.
asked the Prime Minister how many meetings of the Committee of Imperial Defence have been held since the Armistice, and how many meetings of the same body have been held this year; and whether the forthcoming Naval, Military, and Air Force Estimates will be submitted to the Committee for consideration before being laid before Parliament?

The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first and second part of the question is one meeting, though perhaps I should remind the hon. Member that, as the House has been informed on several occasions, by far the greater part of the work of the Committee of Imperial Defence is performed by Sub-committees and conferences of that Committee; as regards the last part of the question, I am not, at the present time, in a position to specify the method by which the Estimates in question will be considered by the Cabinet.

Commander BELLAIRS: Would it not facilitate the work of defence if the three staffs of the fighting Departments were to get together?

The PRIME MINISTER: That is one of the suggestions which has not merely been considered but agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-SERVICE MEN.

LAND SETTLEMENT, CANADA.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: 31.
asked the Prime Minister under what conditions the Canadian Government are placing ex-service men on the land in Canada; and will he communicate with the Canadian Government with a view to ascertaining whether ex-service men of this country may be accorded the same privileges under arrangements made by His Majesty's Government?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Lieut.-Colonel Amery): The Canadian Soldier Settlement Acts make provision for settling qualified Canadian ex-service men upon the land in Canada. The settlement is carried out under the supervision and guidance of the Soldier Settlement Board, and loans sufficient for the purpose of settlement are made by the Board. Qualified soldiers are required to pay 10 per cent. of the purchase price of their farm, and the total maximum loans allowed may not exceed $7,500. The privileges conferred by the Act are extended to approved ex-service men from the United Kingdom, but all such men are required to deposit £200 as a guarantee, i.e., approximately the equivalent of 20 per cent, of the purchase price of their land, stock and equipment. Applications by ex-service men from the United Kingdom can in future only be made in Canada at one of the offices of the Soldier Settlement Board. The possibility of making arrangements with the Canadian Government and the Governments of other Dominions for a wider extension to British ex-service men of the privileges given to their own ex-service men, is certainly worthy of consideration, but involves questions of cost which would have to be carefully gone into.

Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: Will my hon. Friend give an undertaking, if he can, that his Department or some Department of the Government will take this matter up with the various Dominion Governments with a view to seeing how many, if any, and on what terms unemployed ex-service men in this country can be placed on the land in the Empire, and thus provide work for these men instead of paying them unemployment doles here?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: The Overseas Settlement Office has already been in continuous communication with the Dominion Governments in order to secure that the fullest advantage of their ex-service settlement schemes should be given to British ex-service men. As the House knows, free passages are given to men who have been accepted, and their ' families. A further extension would involve some of the overseas Governments in considerable expenditure which they may not be able to bear alone, and the question of sharing the expenditure with
them is certainly worthy of the most sympathetic consideration by this House, which has already done so much for ex-service men.

Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: Will the hon. Gentleman make representations to the Canadian Government with a view to overcoming the £200 limit, which they have put on, not against ex-service men, but to protect themselves against people going to that country and becoming chargeable to their unemployment funds?

Dr. MURRAY: Will the hon. Gentleman make representations to his own Government to provide money in order to settle a great number of ex-service men on the land, especially in Scotland, where they have been waiting so long, without their going overseas?

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

TRADE AGREEMENT, SWEDEN.

Mr. RAPER: 33.
asked the Prime Minister what are the results of his inquiries regarding the reported failure of the Russian Soviet Government to fulfil their obligations under their recent Swedish trade agreement, by the terms of which the Russian Soviet Government were to ship certain goods to Sweden within a specified period in exchange for commodities supplied to them from Sweden; and whether, as a result, certain of the Swedish firms in question have refused to supply any further goods until they are repaid either in gold or in kind?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have not been able to obtain sufficient information to enable me to state to what extent the agreement made in May last between certain Swedish traders and the Centrosojus is being carried out.

Mr. RAPER: If I put a question next week, will the right hon. Gentleman reply?

The PRIME MINISTER: We have communicated, and have been quite unable to find out. If I get any further information on the subject, I will communicate with my hon. Friend.

Colonel C. LOWTHER: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the Soviet Government can be relied upon to carry out any obligation?

TRADE RELATIONS.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 41.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can yet make any statement with regard to the prospects of trade with Russia and Siberia during the coming year for the information of British merchants and manufacturers; and whether the French Government has raised no objection in principle to trade between French business houses and subjects of the Russian Soviet Government?

The PRIME MINISTER: Pending the conclusion of the negotiations with the Russian Trade Delegation and the receipt of further information respecting the economic condition in Russia and Siberia, it is not possible to me to form an estimate as to the prospects of British trade with those countries during the coming year. With regard to the last part of the question, the French Prime Minister recently announced in the Chamber that French business men may trade with Russia at their own risk.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the article in the "Sunday Express" yesterday by the Secretary of State for War that we should not trade in any circumstances with Soviet Russia? Does that represent the views of the Cabinet?

The PRIME MINISTER: My right hon. Friend never did anything of the sort.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Minister for War stated that the greatest possible mistake was to bolster up a cancer? Is that the view of the Cabinet?

ROUBLE NOTE.

Mr. G. DOYLE: 47.
asked the Prime Minister if he is aware that the Russian 1,000 rouble note, which is the chief currency of the Soviet Government, and is of the present value of 9d., contains on the face of the note in nine different languages, including the English language, the words, Workers of the world unite; whether it is proposed that, in the event of establishing trade relations with the Soviet Government, the 1,000 rouble note is to be continued as recognised currency; and whether, if so, His Majesty's Government proposes to lend itself to this form of Bolshevik propaganda?

The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, but in any event I cannot imagine any business being transacted with this country on the basis of payment in rouble notes.

Oral Answers to Questions — TURKEY.

Mr. RAPER: 34.
asked the Prime Minister whether the conditions of the Alliance concluded between the Russian Soviet Government and the Khemalists are to guarantee the integrity of Turkey and to re-establish Turkish administration over all the territory inhabited by Turks, giving to Turkey the right of control over the new States set up in Arabia, to facilitate the work of the Soviet delegates for developing communism in Turkey, Russia and Turkey binding themselves to liberate the Mussulman countries, such as India, Egypt, Algeria, Morocco, and Tunis from foreign control and to guarantee their independence?

The PRIME MINISTER: His Majesty's Government have no knowledge of the conclusion of any Alliance between the Turks and Bolsheviks.

Mr. RAPER: Is the right hon. Gentle man aware that the terms of the Treaty have been published in the French papers?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes: but I think if my hon. Friend will watch a little more closely the course of events he will find that it is not quite an alliance, but rather the opposite, at present.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMITTEE.

Mr. COWAN: 36.
asked the Prime Minister whether the University Grants Committee has yet reported; and, if not, can he give an approximate date at which their Report may be expected?
informed that the Committee are now considering their Report and hope to submit it to the Treasury early in the new year.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT STAFFS.

MINISTRY OF PENSIONS AND INLAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT.

Captain BOWYER: 37.
asked the Prime Minister, in reference to Command Paper 1032, just issued, why the staffs of the Ministry of Pensions and of the Inland Revenue Department have increased, respectively, to 195 and 312 since 1st September; and what were the additional duties that have necessitated these increases?

Mr. BALDWIN: As regards the Ministry of Pensions, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to reply given on the 1st December to a similar question asked by the hon. and learned Member for Ealing. The increase in staff of the Inland Revenue consists almost entirely of ex-service, men temporarily recruited, and is due to new work arising under the Finance Act, 1920.

FRESH APPOINTMENTS.

Mr. HINDS: 44.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is prepared to appoint a Select Committee to make full inquiry into the staffing of Government Departments, both in London and the provinces, having regard to the allegations that many of these staffs are unduly swollen, and that many fresh appointments are being made unnecessarily and new officials sent into Departments that do not desire them?

The PRIME MINISTER: Great efforts have been made in this matter by the Government, through the examination of the staffs in each Department, both by committees and in other ways, but I shall consider with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Cabinet Finance Committee the suggestion of my hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.

Mr. HIGHAM: 40.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government will consider the advisability of introducing two budgets, one for national expenditure and one for capital account, particularly in view of the fact that the taxpayer is desirous of knowing what part of the taxes with which he is assessed is used for expenditure, and what part is credited to capital account in the reduction of the War debt?

The PRIME MINISTER: The provision made for the reduction of debt is already clearly shown in the existing financial statements. It is, however, the case that these statements, which are prepared so as to follow the system of finance contemplated by the Exchequer and Audit Act, do not always distinguish between capital and recurring expenditure in ordinary times, and are still less adapted to show clearly in the conditions of the present day what part of the year's expenditure is due to current obligations within the present control of Parliament and the Government, and what part is directly due to charges of the same nature as those represented by the War Debt. The Government are considering whether any other form of statement will assist Parliament to a clearer comprehension of the position. We had this very question before us last week at the Cabinet Committee.

Mr. HOGGE: 58.
asked the Prime Minister whether, following the precedent of 29th October, 1919, the Government propose to put down a resolution on economy for the Debate on Thursday?

The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir. The Government do not contemplate putting down any Motion.

Mr. HOGGE: Will the right hon. Gentleman not put down a Motion on the lines of the speech he delivered a day or two since?

Mr. BILLING: On this occasion, as on many previous occasions, will the Government make the Debate a question of a vote of confidence in the Government? Will they take off the Whips, so that we may have a clear issue on the present Government's financial policy?

The PRIME MINISTER: If the policy of the Government is challenged on a vital matter, it is, of course, a vote of confidence.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING LOANS INTEREST.

Mr. BILLING: had given notice of the following question:—
43. To ask the Prime Minister whether he will state why the Treasury are insisting on local authorities taking up the total amount of their housing loan forthwith, seeing that this money bears interest at the rate of 6 per cent., and that, owing to the backward-
ness of municipal building schemes, they are unable to make present use of this money and therefore are re-investing it in Treasury Bonds bearing interest at the rate of 6½ per cent.?

Mr. BILLING: Since raising this question as a matter of urgency, last Thursday, I find that the Treasury have made arrangements to protect the taxpayer by raising the rate of interest to 6j per cent. Therefore I do not propose to ask the question.

The CHANCELLOR: of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): I do not
follow the explanation of the hon. Member, but there is no foundation for his original allegation.

Mr. BILLING: Is it not a fact that on the evening of the day on the morning of which I put down the question, the Order was issued informing all municipalities that for the future the interest would be raised from 6 to 6½ per cent., so that they could not make a profit by shuffling with the Treasury?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No. That was not the question. The question was
why the Treasury are insisting on local authorities taking up the total amount of the housing loan forthwith,
and, as I have said, the allegation was without foundation.

Mr. BILLING: The question was
seeing that this money bears interest at the rate of 6 per cent. and that, owing to the backwardness of municipal building schemes, they are unable to make present use of this money, and therefore are reinvesting it in Treasury Bonds bearing interest at the rate of 6½ per cent.
Since that question has been put down, the Treasury have put up the interest at the rate of 6½ per cent., and, therefore, everything is all right.

Oral Answers to Questions — WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT.

Mr. WIGNALL: 46.
asked the Prime Minister if he is aware of the distress and poverty existing in the families of persons who have been disabled through injuries received while following their employment and who have to meet the present high cost of living out of the amounts provided by the Workmen's Compensation Act; and if it is the inten-
tion of the Government to immediately introduce an improved Workmen's Compensation Act on the lines recommended by the Committee appointed to deal with the matter in their Report?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): The Prime Minister has asked me to reply. I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on Thursday last to the question on this subject asked by the hon. Member for the Ogmore Division.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES.

Sir F. HALL: 49.
asked the Prim-Minister whether it is proposed to take early action to carry out the economies in the working of the Employment Exchanges recommended by the Committee of Inquiry who have just reported; and if, in view of his recent declaration in favour of immediate and relentless economy, steps will be taken to secure a reduction in the expenditure on the Exchanges during the current financial year?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY: to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Sir Montague Barlow): I have been asked to reply. Immediate action will be taken to deal with the recommendations of this Committee and to effect economies which I hope may prove to be possible and on the lines laid down by the Committee. I would remind my hon. and gallant Friend, however, that at the moment a very heavy burden falls upon the Exchanges on account of the great and increasing amount of unemployment, also that the new Unemployment Insurance Act increases the number of insured persons from about 4,000,000 to about 12,000,000; and, for the great part, unemployment insurance benefit is paid by the local Employment Exchanges.

Sir F. HALL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a lot of this unemployment might be done away with if the Government would take the necessary steps to protect many industries in this country, such as toys and baskets?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is resuming a Debate which I have already said is not in order.

Oral Answers to Questions — WASHINGTON CONFERENCE (MATERNITY PROPOSALS).

Mr. CLYNES: 50.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to state when it is proposed to give legislative enactment to the maternity proposals of the Washington Conference?

The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer my right hon. Friend to the reply which I gave on the 25th November to a question by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Fife (Mr. Adamson).

Mr. CLYNES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if the Government does not take action in this matter prior to 22nd January it will be unable to comply with the provisions of the Peace Treaty in respect to this question?

The PRIME MINISTER: I believe that that is wrong.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC BUILDINGS (OCCUPATION BY UNEMPLOYED).

Captain TERRELL: 51.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the occupation of public buildings by small bodies of unemployed; and whether, in the interest of order and the conservation to the public of the proper use of these structures, he will instruct the authorities to see that these premises are at once vacated when so invaded?

Mr. SHORTT: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. The matter is not one in which the Government has any power to instruct local authorities; but I have no doubt local authorities will be careful to protect public rights while doing their best to deal gently with men who are suffering from the present increase of unemployment.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHANNEL TUNNEL.

Viscount CURZON: 52.
asked the Prime Minister when he expects to be in a position to make any statement with reference to the Channel Tunnel?

The PRIME MINISTER: I regret that I am not in a position to name a date.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered this question from the point of view of solving the problem of unemployment?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, we have done that for some time in any event, but there are conditions of a more permanent concern which we have to consider very carefully before we commit ourselves.

Oral Answers to Questions — NEAR EAST.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: 53.
asked the Prime Minister whether any decision was come to at his recent conferences with the French Prime Minister and the Italian Foreign Minister regarding a rearrangement in favour of Turkey or Bulgaria of areas in Asia Minor and Thrace allotted by the Peace Conference to the late Greek Government; whether any discussion took place at the same conference regarding the steps to be taken by the Allies to deal with Mustapha Kemal and his army, or about Cilicia, or the Syria-Palestine boundary question?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have nothing to add to the official communiqués which have already been published on these subjects.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: When will the right hon. Gentleman be able to make a full statement on this matter and give the House the opportunity of discussing it?

The PRIME MINISTER: I will consider that, but I think that it would be unwise to have a discussion just yet, until there are further developments.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Later on?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Are we to understand from the communiqués referred to that there is no present intention of altering the terms of the Treaty of Versailles?

The PRIME MINISTER: That certainly has not been decided on.

Oral Answers to Questions — ANGLO-FRENCH MILITARY ALLIANCE.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: 54.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will give both Houses of Parliament opportunities of discussing the proposal made by Lord Derby for a special military alliance between this
country and France before the Government is committed to such a policy; and whether he will postpone the consideration of such an alliance until the Dominions of the Empire and India have been fully consulted and their commitments under such an alliance clearly defined?

The PRIME MINISTER: The question of entering into a special military alliance with France is not under discussion.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMIR FEISAL.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: 55.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Emir Feisal has recently arrived in this country; what steps are being taken by the Government to secure the continued friendship of an Arab leader to whom this country is deeply indebted for the action he took in the War on our behalf; and whether the French Government refused to allow the Emir Feisal to travel to this country through France?

The PRIME MINISTER: The Emir Feisal arrived in this country on Thursday, and was received in audience by His Majesty the King on Saturday. No better indication could be given of the desire of His Majesty's Government for the Emir's continued friendship. The French Ambassador at Rome appears to have refused to grant a visa, for the Emir's journey through France, for lack of instructions from the French Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE TREATIES.

AERONAUTICAL MATERIAL (SURRENDER).

Sir F. HALL: 59.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether Article 202 of the Peace Treaty with regard to the surrender by Germany of military and naval aeronautical material has yet been carried out; if not, will he say when it is expected that the delivery of such material will be completed; and whether, in the meantime, the manufacture or importation of aeronautical material by Germany has been entirely stopped?

Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): The terms of the Article referred to have not been completed entirely, but satisfactory progress has been made and every effort is being made by the Inter-
Allied Commission to secure its complete fulfilment. The answer to the third part of the qeustion is in the affirmative.

Oral Answers to Questions — COPPER MINES.

Brigadier - General Sir OWEN THOMAS: 64.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether, so far from pumping the Parys mine being an expensive matter, it would actually be profitable, seeing that from the water so pumped and treated in 1912, copper, etc., precipitated to a total value of £9,000?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Bridgeman): The copper precipitate obtained at this mine is understood to be derived from water flowing by' gravitation from the mine augmented by the leaching of the old waste heaps. To pump out the water from below adit level and reopen the mine would be a much more difficult and expensive operation.

Sir O. THOMAS: 65.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether, in view of the great importance of the issue, both commercially and from the point of view of employment, he will order an independent expert examination of the mine possibilities, especially in view of the enormous enhancement of the price of copper and the scientific improvements now available for dealing with the difficulties?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply I gave to a similar question on the 17th November, to which I have nothing to add.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOMERSETSHIRE MINES.

Mr. HURD: 66.
asked the Secretary for Mines if he will state what were the figures of output, wages, costs, and balance for the Somerset mines alone in column (f), area 5, of the Statistical Summary [Cmd. 949]?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The quarterly statistical summary is published by virtue of the proviso to Sub-section 1 of Section 4 of Part II of the Second Schedule to the Coal Mines Emergency Act. In view of the main provisions of that Subsection I do not think it is open to me to supplement the summary with more detailed information.

Mr. HURD: Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether these figures exist or not, and whether, in their absence, it is possible to form any conclusion concerning this district area of Somerset mining?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am not sure whether the figures exist or not, but I do not think it would be permissible for me to give detailed information.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

RAILWAY ACCOUNTS.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 67.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he can see his way to instruct the several railway companies to prepare the financial statement of accounts and statistical returns in accordance with the Railway Companies (Accounts and Returns) Act, 1911, as far as it is practicable, to enable their proprietors to see for themselves the present cost of working the several departments as shown in Abstracts A, B, C, D, E, and Statistical Returns X., XL?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Sir Eric Geddes): The division of expenditure in detail between railway companies ceased to be necessary when the Government guaranteed to the companies their aggregate net receipts of the year 1913, and it was accordingly suspended to save labour and expense. It is therefore not practicable for individual companies to publish detailed particulars of the present cost of working of their several departments.

RAILWAY GROUPING

Mr. SUGDEN: 88.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he proposes to group railway companies on lines of economy by natural selection, subject to proper safeguards to traders and the public, or what system he intends to apply for grouping purposes?

Sir E. GEDDES: The grouping proposed is shown in the White Paper Cmd. 787, and was built up on consideration of operating economic administrative efficiency. I have now received alternative proposals supported by a large majority of the railway companies which I am considering.

Dr. MURRAY: Will not grouping by natural selection mean that there will be no interference whatever from headquarters? How can there be natural selection with proper safeguards?

RAILWAY CAPITAL.

Mr. SUGDEN: 69.
asked the Minister of Transport what steps will be taken to permit railway companies opportunity to raise any further necessary capital which is urgently needed for extension of their usefulness to traders and the public generally?

Sir E. GEDDES: No obstacle has ever been placed in the way of railway companies as regards raising capital. Further, in order that the controlled railway companies may be encouraged to spend the capital necessary to provide the facilities required by traders and the public, the Government allows during the period of possession interest at 5 per cent, on approved capital expenditure or new works and additional rolling stock, and such interest begins to accrue from the date on which the expenditure is incurred. A sum of about £14,000,000 has been so approved by the Ministry after most careful scrutiny and examination.

FARES (FOOTBALL CLUBS).

Lieut.-Colonel D. WHITE: 70.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is now in a position to grant railway fares at a reduced rate to teams of amateur football clubs who may have to play matches away from home, in the same manner as was the custom before the War?

Sir E. GEDDES: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply to a similar question put by the hon. and gallant Member for Fulham East on the 22nd of November. I am able to add that a Report from the Rates Advisory Committee has quite recently been received and is under consideration.

TRANSPORT SERVICES IMPROVEMENTS.

Captain TUDOR-REES: 71.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he will give any specific instances of improvement in the transport services of the country as a result of the operations of his Ministry?

Sir E. GEDDES: It is not possible within the limits of question and answer to cover satisfactorily the wide scope of the hon. and gallant Member's question, but the following instances may be mentioned. In spite of depleted resources and serious dislocation due to the War vastly greater goods and passenger traffic has been carried than ever before in the history of the railways of this country, and the increase in charge to the public is far below the ratio of increase of commodities and labour in the country and also below the increase of rail charges in other European countries generally. Great and progressive improvement in the roads of the country has been and is being accomplished to the advantage of road transport. As regards the ports of the country and the storage accommodation available throughout, very marked improvement has been effected. In these and many other directions the Ministry of Transport, in co-operation with other agencies, has played a valuable part.

Colonel MILDMAY: Is not some credit due to the railway companies in the matter?

Sir E. GEDDES: I have said that in many directions the Ministry has cooperated with other agencies, and that statement includes the railway companies.

Sir F. HALL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the great congestion there is still in the streets of London? What steps, if any, are being taken to deal with slow-moving traffic, as recommended by the Select Committee on Transport?

Sir E. GEDDES: As soon as the position is made clear regarding the new legislation which it is proposed to introduce, for the creation of a London Traffic Authority, it will help matters. In the meantime, temporary measures have been taken, and, I am told, have made a material improvement.

Sir F. HALL: Will that Bill be brought in early next Session?

Sir E. GEDDES: I cannot answer that question.

RAILWAYS (CONTROL).

Captain TUDOR-REES: 72.
asked the Minister of Transport what is the exact connection between his Ministry and the
railway companies; and whether any control is exercised by him over the railways?

Sir E. GEDDES: My powers of control over the railways are contained in the Ministry of Transport Act, 1919, to which I would refer the hon. and gallant Member.

Mr. BILLING: If the right hon. Gentleman has no control over the railways, why should he take credit for all the improvements?

Sir E. GEDDES: I said that my powers were all in the Act of 1919.

EXCURSION TRAINS (CHRISTMAS).

Mr. GILBERT: 75.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he has now received any reply from the various railway companies as to providing excursion trains for the forthcoming Christmas holidays: what is the decision of the companies, and whether it will be possible for the public to obtain cheap excursion tickets available for three or four days or longer; whether such tickets will be obtainable in advance; and whether any limit will be put upon the number of tickets to be issued to the public?

Sir E. GEDDES: As the hon. Member is probably aware, it has been announced that special excursion trains for third-class passengers will be provided during the Christmas holidays between large centres of population at reduced fares of a single fare and a third for the double journey, with a minimum of 20s. The tickets will be available on these special trains for the outward journey before the holiday and for the return journey after the holiday. They will be procurable in advance. I have requested the railway companies to run within their resources the special trains whenever full loads can be obtained. Subject to these conditions, the issue of tickets will not be limited.

Mr. GILBERT: Is it the fact that the cheap tickets which it is proposed to issue only apply to journeys of over 100 miles, and will the right hon. Gentleman ask the companies to consider whether they cannot give some facilities to many towns which are under 100 miles distant from London and other large cities?

Sir E. GEDDES: The limitation of the minimum of 20s. which has been mentioned approximately gives 100 miles' journey. The basis on which these new fares were given was, as the House knows, to increase the net revenue, and the companies advise me, and I have every reason to believe it is true, that short-distance travel will go on whether there are cheap fares or not.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Are we to understand that these excursion facilities are on economic lines, and will not involve any charge on the public funds?

Sir E. GEDDES: Neither I nor anyone else can guarantee that it will not involve a charge on the public funds. It is given on the advice that it will increase the net receipts of the railways.

Mr. CLYNES: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what justification there is for giving this advantage to one section of the population and withholding it from another on the ground of distance?

Sir E. GEDDES: Economic justification.

Mr. COWAN: 76.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that in Scotland the New Year holidays will run from 30th December, 1920, to 10th January, 1921, inclusive; and whether he will secure for Scotland during that period cheap travelling facilities corresponding to those granted to England for the Christmas holiday period?

Sir E. GEDDES: It has been specially pointed out to the railway companies that the provision of special trains at reduced fares should cover the New Year holiday period in Scotland.

ARTERIAL ROADS.

Mr. NEWBOULD: 78.
asked the Minister of Transport if an agreement has yet been arrived at with the Middlesex County Council to secure the construction of certain sections of new arterial roads situate in the urban districts of Willesden, Tottenham, and Edmonton; if so, the terms and conditions of such agreement; and when it is expected that work will be commenced in the several districts, in all of which there is considerable unemployment?

Sir E. GEDDES: The Middlesex County Council have agreed to carry out the con-
struction of the following arterial roads in the districts named, i.e., North Circular Road, in Edmonton and Willesden; New Cambridge Road in Tottenham, Edmonton, and Enfield. In accordance with the terms of the Government's offer, 50 per cent. of the cost will be contributed by the Government and the other 50 per cent. by the Middlesex County Council. It is expected that work will begin in Edmonton and Willesden to-day and that in the other districts there will be an almost equally rapid start. As the work is being undertaken by the County Council with the help of the local authorities, the rate of progress rests with them. I know of no obstacles to prevent a rapid absorption of unemployed men.

Mr. NEWBOULD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he is making similar arrangements with Essex County Council in order to provide employment for the unemployed in Leyton and other districts?

Sir E. GEDDES: I am not quite sure, but I know that negotiations are progressing and there is a great deal of detail involved. Progress has been made with the London County Council and the Middlesex County Council, and other county councils around London are included in those negotiations.

Mr. FOREMAN: 79.
asked the Minister of Transport if an agreement has yet been arrived at with the London County Council to secure the construction of certain sections of new arterial roads situate at Dagenham and in Greenwich, Hackney, Woolwich, and other Metropolitan boroughs; if so, what are the terms and conditions of such agreement; and when it is expected that work will be commenced in the several districts, in all of which, as he is aware, there is considerable unemployment?

Sir E. GEDDES: The London County Council have agreed to carry out the construction of portions of the Eastern Avenue, Bromley Byepass, Shooters Hill Byepass, Eltham Byepass and the Kid-brook Park Extension. In accordance with the terms of the Government's offer, 50 per cent, of the cost will be contributed by the Government and the other 50 per cent, by the county council. In addition to these schemes, agreement has also been reached with the county councils of London and Essex regarding the con-
struction of the Tilbury Road diversion through the London County Council housing estate at Dagenham. It is expected that work will be proceeding on some sections of these roads in the course of this week.

Oral Answers to Questions — MONTENEGRO.

Mr. RONALD McNEILL: 80.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Montenegro has applied for admission to the League of Nations; whether a request has also been made to the League of Nations at Geneva that an international commission be appointed to investigate the crimes committed in Montenegro by the Serbs, the Report of such commission to be published in full; and whether any instructions have been, or will be, given to the British representatives in the League as to their attitude to these two requests of Montenegro, respectively?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and those to the second and third parts in the negative. Until the future status of Montenegro is settled, the question of her becoming a member of the League cannot arise.

Mr. McNEILL: Can the hon. Gentleman say how the status is going to be determined?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: My hon. Friend has other questions on the subject.

Mr. McNEILL: 81.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give any information concerning the assassination of Dr. Sekulé Drlievitch by the Serbs on the eve of the elections for a Constituent Assembly in Jugo-Slavia; whether this ex-Minister of Montenegro was the most prominent of the Montenegrin candidates for election and was murdered during his canvass, in which he made it plain that he did not acknowledge the legality of the elections so far as Montenegro was concerned, but sought election in order to expose the crimes of Serbia against his country; whether his murder under such circum stances intimidated other candidates and the Montenegrin electors; and whether,
notwithstanding this assassination, it is still maintained that the elections express the uncoerced will of the Montenegrin people?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: It is unfortunately true that Dr. Drlievic was killed during the election at Kolashin. Our information is that brigands attacked the polling station and some soldiers lost their lives in defending it, which shows that the authorities were trying to preserve order and freedom of elections there. In regard to the remaining parts of the question, I must await the report of the British official who was sent to Montenegro as a witness of these elections.

Mr. McNEILL: 82.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the elections for a Constituent Assembly which have been held out as offering the means for ascertaining the wishes of the Montenegrin people regarding their future political status are for a Constituent Assembly of all Jugo-Slavia, to which Montenegro is invited to send half-a-dozen delegates to sit with delegates representing the territories emancipated from the rule of Austria-Hungary; whether there is any precedent for putting the people of an independent allied State on the same footing as former enemies whose status has been changed by the Treaty of Peace; if he will say what Article of the Treaty with Austria-Hungary, or any other treaty, provides for, or sanctions, this treatment of an Ally; and whether it is held by His Majesty's Government that the invitation to Montenegro to elect some delegates to an assembly in a foreign country is a fulfilment of the repeated pledges that the Montenegrin people should freely decide their own future?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, except in so far as the number of deputies assigned to Montenegro is ten and not six. The last three parts of my hon. and learned Friend's question appear to proceed from a misconception of the object and basis of the Jugo-Slav Constituent Assembly. It is a question not of any differentiation between enemies and allies, but of obtaining an authoritative expression of opinion whether the dispersed elements of the Jugo-Slav race desire union, and, if so, on what terms
they wish this union to be secured. For the purposes of this popular consultation the Montenegrin people have been placed on exactly the same footing as the Croats, Slovenes, and the Serbians.

Mr. McNEILL: Does my hon. Friend not realise that the Montenegrin people are an independent nation, and if they are to be asked to decide their own status, why should they be put with anybody else?

Mr. MacVEAGH: The same as Ireland.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: My hon. and learned Friend is well aware of the differences of opinion among the Montenegrin people themselves as to their future.

Captain REDMOND: Is there an Ulster there?

Mr. McNEILL: If there are differences of opinion among the Montenegrin people why is their opinion not taken?

Mr. MacVEAGH: A Daniel come to judgment.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The intention of the election for a Constituent Assembly is proposed in order to ascertain what the Montenegrin people want.

Mr. DEVLIN: Will the hon. Gentleman give Ireland what it wants, as it knows its own mind and has declared it?

Mr. LYNN: For whom do you speak?

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE EMPLOYES (STRIKE-POLICY).

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: (by Private Notice) asked the Postmaster-General whether a ballot has just been taken among 107,049 employés of the Post Office who are members of the Union of Post Office Workers on the question of whether a strike policy should be adopted by the union and a strike fund created; whether 48,157 employés voted in favour of a strike policy and for the creation of a strike fund, and 35,411 against, being a majority in favour of the above proposal of 12,746, no ballot papers being returned by 23,481; whether he is aware that the above result is to be considered by the executive of the union on 8th December, in order to decide upon further action; and whether he will see
that an intimation is communicated to the executive of the union before that date indicating that persons in the Government service cannot be permitted to hold up the community by means of a strike against a decision of the Government who represent the elected representatives of the people of the country?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Pike Pease): I believe the facts are as stated by my hon. Friend. It is not considered necessary to make any communication in the sense suggested.

Sir W. DAVISON: Does not my right hon. Friend consider that a very serious position has now arisen, in that the majority of the union have expressed their desire to form a striking union with a strike fund, and, having regard to the fact that the Government forbade the Police Force to form a striking union, does he not think it is high time for the Government to take some action.

Mr. MacVEAGH: Send for the Black and Tans.

Mr. PEASE: I regret that this resolution of the Post Office employés should have been passed. The answer I have given represents the considered policy of the Government.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is it the considered policy of the Government to allow Government servants to go on strike?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. CLYNES: May I ask the Leader of the House what items of business the Government intend to try to complete before the House rises to-night?

Mr. BONAR LAW: We hope to take the first eight Orders and, if there be any time, to proceed with Supplementary Estimates.

Mr. MILLS: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us if we are likely to have Christmas Day off?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I hope so. It will depend more on the House than on the Government.

Mr. DEVLIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman say, in view of the action of
the House of Lords in regard to the so-called Home Rule Bill, whether the Bill will now be dropped?

Mr. BONAR LAW: It is not called a "so-called" Home Rule Bill, but the Government of Ireland Bill. It will not be dropped?

Mr. BILLING: Are we to understand that the House is not likely to adjourn before Christmas?

Mr. BONAR LAW: No, it would be a mistake to assume that.

BILL PRESENTED.

POLICE PENSIONS BILL,

"to consolidate and amend the Law respecting the retirement, pensions, allowances, and gratuities of members of police forces in Great Britain and their widows and children," presented by Mr. SHORTT; supported by Mr. Munro; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 257.]

Orders of the Day — HOUSING (SCOTLAND) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): I beg to move "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This is a short and comparatively simple measure dealing with housing in Scotland. It applies to Scotland with the necessary adaptations Part I of the Ministry of Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. I have taken the responsibility of entirely excising the corresponding provisions of Part II of that Bill. Accordingly, this Bill deals with housing and with housing alone. The provisions which the Bill contains have been so recently and so exhaustively discussed, both upon the Second Reading of my right hon. Friend's Bill and in Committee upstairs, that I hope that a brief explanation of the effect of those provisions will suffice. Clause 1 of the Bill confers powers on local authorities to hire compulsorily houses for a limited period, that period being from the date of the hiring to the date when the Rent Restriction Act expires, namely, 28th May, 1923. The rent which is to be paid for these houses which are compulsorily hired will be fixed by the official arbiter under the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act of 1919, and it is provided that no allowance will be made in respect of the fact that hiring is compulsory. Of course, if the parties agree, good and well, but if there is a difference of opinion, then the official arbiter will settle the amount of the rent. The Bill as drawn does not insert any rateable value of the houses that may be taken. That is a question, no doubt, for discussion in Committee, but the Bill as drawn is perfectly general in regard to that matter. Moreover, the Bill excludes from the operation of the compulsory hiring powers, as the first proviso lays it down that
any house erected after or in the course of erection on the second day of April, 1919, or to any house acquired for the public service or for the purpose of the statutory duties or powers of a statutory undertaking and reasonably required for those purposes.
That was a proviso inserted in Committee on the English Bill, and I hope it will commend itself to the House as a
reasonable provision. The need of Clause 1 in Scotland, I am assured, is very great, and I hope that after reasonable discussion the House will confer on the Scottish Board of Health the powers asked for.

Mr. HOGGE: Have you any details?

Mr. MUNRO: I have a certain number of facts and figures, but they deal with furnished houses, and the question will arise, no doubt, whether this Bill should or should not take in those houses. In regard to furnished houses, I can give my hon. Friend one example. I am told that in Largs, out of 2,000 houses in the burgh, there are 700 which are tenanted by non-residents. Of these 700, about 100 are sub-let, and therefore about 600 houses are standing empty for the greater part of the year in that burgh, while there arc many persons there who are at the same time, so I am informed, houseless. That is an illustration of the kind which my hon. Friend has invited me to give.

Sir G. YOUNGER: Is there anything said about the rent?

Mr. MUNRO: I said very distinctly that the Bill as drawn imposes no such limit. I am well aware that a limit was imposed in the English Bill upstairs, and I think it is a matter for discussion in the Scottish Grand Committee on this Bill whether or not that limit should be repeated here, but the Bill as drawn does not contain it, and I am prepared to justify the terms of the Bill, if necessary, so far as that matter is concerned. It is a difficult question, but it arises, I think, rather in Committee than on the Second Reading. Clause 2 of the Bill deals with the time during which the subsidy is payable to private builders. As the House is aware, the time at which the subsidy payable was originally timed to expire was 23rd December of this year. It is proposed to extend the time by twelve months, as is done in the English measure, and considering the scarcity of materials and labour and the other causes which have held back houses from being erected under the subsidy and otherwise, I hope the House will regard that as a reasonable provision. May I just add this, that the effect of that extension will not be to involve any increase at all upon the sum of £15,000,000 which was set aside
under the Housing (Additional Powers) Act, 1919, for the purpose of the payment of the subsidy. The sum of £15,000,000 will cover the increased period, and not a single penny more will be required. There is a provision which the House will note attached to the Clause which requires Regulations made by the Board to be laid before both Houses so far as they relate to houses which are commenced after the 31st March, 1921. That provision, I think, was inserted in the English Bill upstairs, and I shall be surprised if the House of Commons, which is so jealous of its control over these matters, should object to a provision which is designed to ensure that control of Regulations shall be secured.
With regard to the facts relating to houses which have been erected under the subsidy in Scotland, preliminary certificates—that is certificates approving the plans of these houses—have been granted showing that 1,425 houses in Scotland may participate in the subsidy up to the 15th November. I have not got particulars up to the present moment. Of those houses, 49 have been completed and the subsidy has already been paid. With regard to the size of the houses, I am informed that 350 of these houses are three-roomed houses, 530 are four-roomed houses, and 545 include five or six rooms. Accordingly, the House will see that one has got rid of the very small building which is so often deprecated, and that, according to my information, the minimum size of these houses, which have been erected under strict Regulations of the Board of Health, is three rooms. Clause 3 amends Section 5 of the Housing (Additional Powers) Act, 1919, which deals with the prohibition of what we have come to call luxury buildings, and the main object of this Clause is to improve the machinery for carrying that Section into effect. In the first place, power is given in the interests of expedition to local authorities to delegate their powers and their duties to committees, but that provision is safeguarded by this important proviso:
Provided that any Order made under the aforesaid Section five of the Housing (Additional Powers) Act, 1919, by such a Committee shall be forthwith submitted to the local authority and taken into consideration by the authority at their next meeting,
and shall not continue in force unless confirmed by the authority.
4.0 P.M.
The reason for that provision is that it has been found that considerable delay has ensued because you have had to wait for a meeting of the local authority in order to deal with the matter. It has been considered safe and justifiable that these powers shall be delegated by the local authority to a committee upon which its members will predominate, always subject- to this, that the Order shall be brought under review by the local authority itself at its next meeting, and shall cease to operate unless it be then confirmed. Power is also conferred by this Clause upon two local authorities to appoint a joint committee for the purposes of the Section. I am assured that is a desirable and proper power to confer, and, subject to the safeguards contained in the Bill, I hope that the House will agree with that view. Then, on the suggestion of the Joint Industrial Council, which, as the House knows, contains employers and employés, it is provided that buildings may be prohibited where bribes are being held out to workmen by offering them wages at a higher rate than the recognised rate in the district. We have had at least one such case in Scotland— I believe that there have been several in England—where men were bribed by being offered a higher rate of wages than could be paid under the housing scheme in the district, with the result that not only one but several housing schemes were held back. This Clause has been suggested by the Joint Industrial Council, and it is in the English Bill. The Clause goes on to pro vide for the reconstitution of the Appeal Tribunal which decides questions of luxury building. At the present moment it is a standing tribunal consisting of five members. I do not want to criticise it, but I feel bound to tell the House that I have had repeated and strong remonstrances from the Corporation of Glasgow with regard to the decisions of the existing tribunal. I am entitled to tell the House that in Scotland 16 out of 18 appeals which have been taken to that tribunal for the purpose of enabling luxury building, cinemas, or something of that sort, to proceed, have been sustained. I am not sufficiently acquainted with the precise circumstances—

Sir H. CRAIK: Thank Heaven, we have somebody with sense in Scotland.

Mr. MUNRO: I said that I was not criticising the tribunal.

Sir H. CRAIK: You are abolishing it.

Mr. MUNRO: The existing tribunal, certainly, will be abolished, but there is nothing to prevent the members of it, if the Board of Health think fit, being re-appointed under the provisions of this Bill. I think it right and fair to put the House in possession of these two facts: First, that remonstrances have been directed to me by the Corporation of Glasgow, and second that sixteen out of eighteen appeals have succeeded. The proposal now is that, instead of that tribunal of five, the chairman shall be appointed from a panel of chairmen to be set up by the Board of Health, and that the Board of Health shall also constitute a panel from which the ordinary members shall be selected.

Sir P. MAGNUS: How many?

Mr. MUNRO: Three in all. It is provided that they may sit in such divisions as may seem proper to the Board. The only other provision of that Clause to which I need refer is Sub-section (4), which provides for the intervention of the Board of Health, as distinguished from the local authority, in two sets of circumstances: First, where, by reason of the construction in the district of some other authority of buildings of less public importance than the provision of dwelling accommodation, the Board are satisfied that the provision of dwelling accommodation is likely to be hindered or is hindered. Where a building is going on in an adjacent local authority of a character which interferes with the housing scheme of the first authority, the Board of Health may intervene. Secondly, the Board may interfere and make an Order where the local authority in question is failing to do its duty under the section, or, in other words, failing to take appropriate steps to prevent luxury building. That is all I need say about Clause 3.
We now come to Clause 4, which gives power to a local authority to execute works which are necessary or which are incidental to the carrying out of a hous
ing scheme which is beyond the confines of its own district. Several burgh authorities in Scotland are carrying out such schemes and buildings outside their own boundaries. Wishall, Motherwell, Airdrie, Glasgow, Queensferry, Lasswade and Prestonpans, I am informed, are all building outside the confines of their own particular districts. Difficulties have arisen in such cases with regard to the provision both of sewage and of water. At present, under the existing law, these cannot be provided by a local authority outside its own area, and yet the House will see that, assuming that these buildings are going on in the area of a small local authority outside the area of an adjoining large local authority, the small local authority may find great difficulty in financing the water and sewage arrangements which are necessary during the period when the houses are going up and are not subject to assessment. Accordingly, this Clause provides that the first authority which is really responsible for these buildings may enter into arrangements with the second local authority for the purpose of constructing sewage and water schemes under appropriate conditions, and power is taken, as the House will observe in paragraphs (b) and (c) of the first Sub-section, to borrow and to lend money in connection with that enterprise.
Clause 5 is really for the purpose of rectifying an omission in the Additional Powers Act, 1919, Section 7. It is not, however, a very important question so far as Scotland is concerned. Section 7 of that Act authorises the county council to lend money to a local authority within its own area for the purposes of housing, and it authorises the Board of Health to prescribe conditions with regard to the raising of the money by the county council for that purpose. It omitted, however, to authorise the Board to prescribe the conditions upon which the county council should lend the money to the local authority. The House will at once see that if a county council raised money, subject to certain conditions prescribed by the Board of Health, it might be very desirable that those same conditions should be imposed in the deed in virtue of which the money was lent by the county council to the local authority. At present, through inadvertence or otherwise, that power does not exist, and that casus improvidus is being remedied in
Clause 5 of this Bill. It has little application to Scotland, because, so far as I know, there is no county council in Scotland which is at present lending money to a local authority within its area. Some such cases, however, might arise, and it is thought proper to take the same power as already exists in England with regard to this matter.
Clause 6 has for its object the enabling of a local authority, where it is selling houses, to accept payment for the houses by instalments or to leave a certain proportion of the price, as we say in Scotland, on bond, or, as would be said in England, on mortgage. That is the design of Clause 6. England has this power already, but there is no corresponding power in the Scottish statute. I think it is very likely that a local authority may desire to sell houses, let us say, to working people, and it might be a great convenience hat the local authority should be empowered, not to demand cash down in respect of the transaction, but to accept payment by instalments, or, if necessary, by a bond over the house which has been sold.

Sir P. MAGNUS: What will be the rate of interest?

Mr. MUNRO: The rate of interest is not prescribed. That will be a matter for the local authority, having regard to the current rate of interest at the time. Lastly, Clause 7—Clause 8 is formal— provides that the rate of interest on advances under the Small Dwellinigs Act, 1899, and on expenses, which are recoverable in respect of repairs which have been executed by the local authority under the Act of 1909 in default of such repairs being executed by the person responsible for them, should more closely approximate to the rate of interest which is prevailing at the time. The rate of interest prescribed by the Act of 1899, and even by the Act of 1909, is really not appropriate to present-day conditions, and, accordingly, by this Clause the central authority may, with the approval of the Treasury—that is important—fix a rate of interest which corresponds with the rate generally obtaining in the country at the time.
Such is the measure which I have the honour to ask the House to read a Second time. I would remind my Scottish col-
leagues and such English Members as are interested in this matter that the Bill is urgent, if only for the reason that the most important Clause is the Clause dealing with the subsidy, the right to which expires on 23rd December this year. Accordingly, the House will appreciate that it is of the first importance that the Bill should pass through all its stages before that date; otherwise, a hiatus of a very unfortunate character will occur, with consequences that I do not like to contemplate. I hope that it may be possible, although I regret that the Bill was not brought in earlier, for the Bill to reach the Statute Book before that date, and, inasmuch as the Clauses have been subjected to very full discussion both downstairs and upstairs on the other measure, that it may not be necessary to spend quite so much time over them as the House might otherwise spend.

Sir H. CRAIK: I cannot congratulate my colleagues upon the fruit of the pure and absolute independence of Scotland which is represented by this Bill. We are told that Bills for Scotland ought to be drafted according to the characteristic needs of Scotland. There are peculiarities in Scotland that cannot be overlooked, and which make this House utterly unfitted to legislate for Scotland. What has my right hon. Friend done in order to realise the expression of this absolute independence? He has adopted, ipsissima verba, a Bill which is drafted by the Minister of Health in England. He has found that Bill so excellent that, even although in some respects he finds no cases to which, as he tells us, Clauses 5 and 6 are applicable in Scotland, though he thinks they may perhaps occur, he puts the Scottish Bill on exactly the same footing as the English Bill, and introduces two exactly identical Clauses. I am not going to confine myself only to finding fault. There is a certain merit in this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman has not attempted to emulate the all-omnivorous Act of his right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, whose Bill embraces almost every conceivable form of human life. In spite of the arguments my right hon. Friend has used, I would point out that objections which, to my mind, arose in the Bill of the Minister of Health, unfortunatley extend in a precisely similar manner to this Bill. It does not make a proposal to seize arbitrarily houses that you may find three months out of occupa-
tion less objectionable because you now use it for Scotland. The absurd Error against all political economy is committed, the primary rights of property, upon which the benefit of all classes of the community depends, are interfered with just as much as they were when the English Bill was introduced. But I observe that my right hon. Friend, although he has adopted the Bill exactly in the words introduced by the Minister of Health, has carefully avoided introducing a certain precautionary proviso which was introduced in Committee upstairs. He has refused to put in certain Clauses which we were able to press upon the attention of the Minister in Committee upstairs, and which we were able to commend to his consideration and find him ready to adopt. My right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland is anxious to adopt, not the example of his right hon. colleague of amending the Bill on advice upstairs, but nothing will please him but the original proposals of his right hon. Friend. I say that Clause 1 is a serious and a very pernicious interference with those principles of property, the destruction of which would be equally dangerous to the whole of the Community.
I am not, of course, going through the Bill in detail—not even the detail which the right hon. Gentleman himself has done. I come to Clause 3. I do not care what arguments may be used on the Labour Benches. I am convinced that these restrictions of labour, this telling labour it must follow a certain course, and must withhold its hand from another course, whatever advocacy it may have, is fundamentally wrong, and can never be made right. It is going back to the curbing legislation of the Middles Ages, which told in the long run against the labouring classes themselves. You are going back now, in the twentieth century, to a trend of legislation that is absolutely and entirely wrong. I have learned to expect from the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) careful arguments and consideration, and I really shall be surprised if the hon. Member, who is Versed in political economy, and who has studied these questions, is prepared to say that he prefers to have the workers curbed, and to be told that they shall employ labour in one way and not another. Take the cant phrase of "luxury building." Is it to the interest
of every class of the community that the building of schools, libraries and picture galleries should all be stopped entirely? What would be the effect on the working men? Are there not immense numbers of working men, who, by this Clause 3, will be deprived of the only sort of employment they can get? What about the skilled carpenter, the skilled stonemason, and the various skilled mechanics employed in this higher class of work? They are all to be told that, unless they take part in the work of the humbler sort of housebuilding, they are not to be employed. I ask the hon. Member whether he thinks that this is expressing a really sound basis of political economy?
It is all very well to speak of these things as exceptional and temporary. We have a little experience now how these temporary and exceptional powers are apt to be abused, and to grow worse and worse as they continue, how tempting they are for those who have the administration, how easy they seem to be, and how they invest them with a little brief authority which every man likes to exercise and to continue to exercise, and is very loth to give up when he is asked to do so. Not only is this mischievous power permitted, but it is continued in several aggravated forms. Apparently, these orders, telling the workers they are to employ themselves in a particular way, are not to be exercised by the local authority in open meeting, but by a committee of the local authority. I can imagine how the little busybodies of a local authority, those who have any particular jealousies, will manage to be on this committee which is to sit in secret and issue its orders.

Mr. MUNRO: My right hon. Friend will forgive me if I interrupt, but I am sure he does not want to do me or the Bill an injustice. He will bear in mind that an order of the committee is not to be continued unless confirmed in open meeting of the local authority at its next meeting.

Sir H. CRAIK: I have not overlooked that point in the least. I was going to point out how absolutely inefficient and useless is this proviso to which my right hon. Friend has referred. What did my right hon. Friend say? He said that the local authority might not meet for a month. If the order was not to come into operation until confirmed that would
be a different thing, but it is not to continue unless confirmed. What is the use of telling me a month after the order has been going on that it will not go on any-longer if the local authority does not confirm the order? The mischief is done within the first day of the order. These workmen are dispersed, the contract is closed, the men take the whole of their tools to another place, or are left idle and useless. It is no use telling me a month hence there will be some power of reconsideration. The evil is done when this little committee, sitting in secret, has issued its order.
My right hon. Friend spoke of the tribunal. He does not, he says, want to blame it; he only wants to reconstitute it. I do not wonder. He has found that in Glasgow this tribunal exercised a little more common sense than those whose decisions they overturned. But my right hon. Friend desires to destroy any effective appeal against these restrictive provisions. Independence in a tribunal does not suit either the trade union or my right hon. Friend or the Minister of Health, in whose footsteps he follows so faithfully. The tribunal is to be transformed. "I am not finding fault with it," says my right hon. Friend; "I am not blaming it. I am only putting the coup de grâce to it by bringing it to an end. There are additional grievances in this mediaeval, reactionary proposal of Clause 3. The right hon. Gentleman did not acept the reconsidered view of the Committee upstairs with regard to Clause 1, but he has accepted a new Clause not in the Bill as it was first introduced by the Minister of Health but foisted upon us after severe resistance on our part in Committee. He has put in Sub-section (3), which is a most dangerous Subsection. Not only does it take power to close operations of a particular sort, and tells workmen that they may only carry out dull, uninteresting, plodding, ill-paid work, but it says a great deal more. Some employers might attract workpeople by various inducements. Perhaps they might be treated more kindly; certain provision might be made for sickness. Perhaps they might be treated as equals, instead of mere machines for making money. No employer is to employ a man under conditions in these respects better than any other. If he does he is to be reported to this little junta, or secret committee, and he will
be told what they think on the matter, and how he is instantly to stop anything of the sort, any advantage, any extra kindness, or any extra remuneration. Really, does the right hon. Gentleman think that this sort of thing is likely to prove efficacious or likely to find a fitting part in our social system?
I know what happened upstairs in the Committee, and what the right hon. Gentleman has said about the Joint Industrial Committee. Strangely enough, this body, consisting of employers and the Labour party, was precisely the alliance that we had in the Committee upstairs. I was desirous of opposing this Clause in the English Bill, and an hon. Member who is also a large employer of labour for once joined hands with the trade unionists, for he knew that the effect of the proposition would be that he would not be troubled with dangerous and disagreeable rivals. But I am not to be moved, either upstairs or here, by the association of employers and trade unionists, or by either of them alone, or by both in company, for it is an unholy alliance, and you may depend upon it that neither side in a compact of this kind is showing to the other the whole of his hand. The only people who are certain to be injured by such conduct is the ordinary poor working man, more than that, the consumer, and that body of men, the ordinary taxpayers, who are trying to get as good a market as they can, and who in these hard times very reasonably object to having their prices legally enlarged in geometrical progression. It is very convenient perhaps for the joint council of employers and trade unionists to do things for which somebody else has to pay.
There is another feature that aggravates the absurdity of this Clause. Hitherto the local authority has exercised power, very dangerous, I think, though it may sometimes be a useful power. Now it is to be handed over to a small committee of their number, whose decision they may at some remote and future date revise for any purpose whatever. Not only that. Supposing the local authority does not think that this restrictive power ought to be exercised. Suppose they are erecting small tenements, and that there is some form of what is called luxury building in a small way, and that it is likely to provide an abundance of well-paid employment to be open to the in-habitants of the district. If they come
to a decision on this point to allow the luxury building they may be over-ruled. I suppose it will be the Minister of Health in England who has the power of veto. And who is to be this bureaucrat who is to exercise the authority in Scotland? I suppose it means my right hon. Friend below me (Mr. Munro). If he, then, or his subordinates, find that things are being a little more liberally treated, that labour is getting a little better conditions in the particular locality of an obstinate local authority, he may exercise these arbitrary powers; he may stop the thing, and force the local authority to do what they do not wish. I am not in the least more reconciled to the absurd, tyrannical, reactionary principles that are embodied in this Bill, or think they are one whit better because they are introduced by my right hon. Friend who is humbly following in the footsteps of the Minister of Health for England. I do not think he will find that these things are much appreciated in Scotland. My fellow-countrymen have, fortunately, a lingering love for commonsense and for political economy. I do not think they are going to say good-bye to it altogether, and allow the perpetual reign of D.O.R.A. and her prolific spawn. I protested against the principles of this Bill before. I protest against it again, and still more when it is slavishly following an example south of the Tweed. The only good thing that I see about the Bill is that instead of having twenty-five or thirty Clauses it has less than a dozen.

Mr. HOGGE: Hon. Members of the House always expect from the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down a speech of the kind he has just delivered —and a repetition of his iconoclastic views on subjects of this kind. I am sure he has our sympathy this afternoon in so far as the English language does not contain a sufficient variety of adjectives for him to express himself as freely as he would have desired. My right hon. Friend, in a speech of this kind, always leaves his colleagues from Scotland cold. We remember his old days at the Scottish Board of Education. We remember how his word was law. We remember how he appointed himself to deal with everything, and how he administered matters in a much more iconoclastic fashion than I am sure my right hon. Friend will
administer this Bill. There are four good points in the Bill on which I wish to offer a few comments. First, we pro pose to take powers for the compulsory hiring of houses so as to provide more accommodation; secondly, we extend the period of the housing subsidy from twelve months to two years; thirdly, we take power to prohibit luxury buildings; and fourthly, we take power to provide facilities for one local authority to do the work of another. This is so far as I have been able to read the Bill. So far as these four things are concerned, I am perfectly certain that within certain limits, such powers which are to be taken can be taken to the advantage of housing in Scotland. All I propose to do is to offer a little criticism of the kind that I think can be elaborated in Committee upstairs.
Take the first point—the compulsory hiring of houses. I hope whatever my right hon. Friend does he will not take up the position that has been taken up in the English Bill, and that he will not limit the amount of rent at which a house can be taken compulsorily. So far as I can gather, the power of compulsory hiring of houses in England has been absolutely destroyed by the very low limit of rent which has been placed upon the type of houses that can be compulsorily taken over. I am not arguing the point whether it is right or wrong compulsorily to hire, but if you are going to do it, then if you limit the datum line similar to that in the English Bill, you simply cut off the supply of empty houses that would be or might be made available; and I would urge my right hon. Friend to resist any limit, and for this reason: he and I and other Scottish Members who are in sympathy with this matter know, for instance, of houses in the large —or some of the large—towns in Scotland where there are not tenement houses, and which houses could easily be converted into tenement houses.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: No!

Mr. HOGGE: My hon. and learned Friend will probably speak for his own town, but, taking the part of Edinburgh that I represent, and which I may be presumed to speak of with some knowledge, if this limit of rent is made applicable, then the Section will not be of that service that it might otherwise be. On
the second point, an example has been taken of the town of Largs, where there are 3,000 houses, and where, if this matter was dealt with on the lines suggested, there would be no necessity for building houses. There are people who reside in Glasgow—and this is true not only of the West of Scotland, but of the East of Scotland, and many towns on the coast near to both Edinburgh, Glasgow, Dundee, and so on—where the houses are rented or owned by the people who occupy them only at certain seasons, and if you Eire dealing with this question in its relation to that fact of the possibility of dwelling-houses for the people engaged in industry, it is no use suggesting to a man in Glasgow who has not a house that there is one in Largs. The same point has been raised in respect to Rosyth. During the War the railway company had to run special trains from Edinburgh to Queensferry day after day, month after month, and year after year, until the appropriate houses were completed at Rosyth. I am wondering how far my right hon Friend the Secretary for Scotland has taken these facts into his consideration when thinking of the number of houses statistically available for places like Largs, Dunoon, or on the East Coast, and in Fifeshire, houses which are not really available so far as industrial people are concerned?

Mr. MUNRO: Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to correct him. I am not suggesting that the houses in Largs will be any use in connection with industrial works in Glasgow, but what I said was there was a demand for new houses in Largs to-day, and that if these houses were made available they would meet the local demand.

Mr. HOGGEI: think that is a perfectly justifiable criticism and correction. There may be cases of that kind. There is always in Scottish towns of that kind a number of people who during the summer months reside in very curious surroundings in order to make a profit out of their own houses. But the point I was making against the right hon. Gentleman when he used the illustration of Largs was that it may be true that in towns like Largs there is a certain unsatisfied demand for houses, but there is nothing like the demand that would be represented by the number of houses which are unoccupied in the summer. I think all
Scottish Members will be with the right hon. Gentleman in the proposal to enlarge the period during which the subsidy should be paid from twelve months to two years.
I want to say a few words with regard to the prohibition of luxury buildings. I think a great deal more is being said about what are called luxury buildings than is actually necessary for the case. It is stated that houses are not being built because luxury buildings are going up. So far as I am able to use my powers of observation I do not see anything in Scottish towns that has been done recently to give evidence that dwelling-houses were being postponed owing to the putting up of any luxury buildings. Frequently as a matter of fact the men who put up dwelling-houses are the men who put up the luxury buildings in many parts of Glasgow, say, and of the large industrial towns, and it is often very much easier for the contractor to build a certain number of dwelling-houses at the same time as he is building a luxury building, so-called. Take one point in this connection. One of the great difficulties in house construction at present is getting plasterers. One of the great requisites in a luxury building, say, a cinema, is the plasterer. While some of the men are putting up dwelling-houses, other workmen can be kept employed on the other part of the job, and, as in the case of the plasterer, may be kept busy on what is called the luxury building. If my right hon. Friend is going to take up this power specified I maintain he should make his case out against luxury building. He should inform the House the number of luxury buildings that are being put up to the detriment of the erection of dwelling-houses.
It is easy to ascertain these figures, because the plans of both luxury building and dwelling-houses have to have local approval. Building cannot be started without that local approval. My hon. Friend has just mentioned 16 cases at Glasgow. If there are only 16 so-called luxury buildings being put up in a population of 1,750,000, equal to half the population of the whole of Scotland— then there would not appear to me to be much of which to complain. A great deal of the money put into these concerns is put in by the working classes, who will naturally reap the benefit, and be enabled to buy ther own houses, to rent
better houses, or engage in other forms of increasing their own capital. While everyone will be willing to see my right hon. Friend be given drastic powers to prevent luxury building if he can prove his case, there would appear to be no need for this power if the building of dwelling-houses is not interfered with. I do not think the House would object to giving the local authority power to stop any luxury building if there was an absolutely unanswerable case in favour of dwelling-houses being put up in the immediate locality or in that district. But the case wants to be stronger than any facts have shown it to be up to the present.
The last criticism I want to make is on Clause 4. I suppose Clause 4 is rather comparable to that which we heard last week from the First Commissioner of Works, who has power in the building of houses to do the work for local authorities. Clause 4 seeks to give to one local authority power to do work for another local authority.

Mr. MUNRO: Local authority A may carry out work within the area of local authority B.

Mr. HOGGE: Will local authority A or B be responsible to the Government?

Mr. MUNRO: Local authority A will finance the enterprise and in the end of the day transfer the houses to local authority B.

Mr. HOGGE: If you introduce this practice of one local authority doing work for another, and not only that but borrowing money for the work done for the second local authority, you are going to get a complication of accounts. I do not want the practice commenced in Scotland with one local authority acting as a contractor for another local authority. There was a case in this country in which the First Commissioner of Works was actually acting as contractor for local authorities, and he asked this House for a loan of £?00,000 for that purpose. I hope Clause 4 does not mean that any local authority will be able to act in the place of a con-tractor for another local authority If, as my right hon. Friend points out, local authority A is doing work in the area of local authority B because it happens
to be A, one can see the reason for that, but I hope my right hon. Friend will not allow that to develop to such an extent that local authorities may enter into the same relations as existed in the English case.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: In common with all my Scottish colleagues, I listened with very great interest to the speech delivered by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir H. Craik). Notwithstanding what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I should be prepared to make this statement, rash as it may appear, that even if we read this Bill very strictly in the light of so-called laws of political economy, we could justify practically every point in it at the present time. The main criticism which I desire to direct against this Bill is confined to one or two plain and elementary points. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) that it would be singularly unfortunate if in the final Clause of this Bill we introduced in Scotland a limit of rateable value. The introduction of a very low limit of ratable value appears to me to rob the provision in the English Bill of all value as far as this particular Clause is concerned. The houses which are proposed to be taken for this purpose in a great emergency are in the main not houses of small rental at all. Houses of low, or comparatively low, rental are not available, but there are in many parts of England, and certainly in many parts of Scotland, houses of a larger size whose proprietors may have fallen on difficult times during the War which are now standing empty, and which on this proposal would be compulsorily acquired for the purpose of providing housing accommodation.
5.0. P.M.
If we impose a low rateable value in Scotland, where our system is different to that in this country, we should simply exclude a considerable number of properties which would be of the highest value in giving the temporary accommodation so much required by those who desire houses at the present time. But even if that were not true the introduction of a limit of rateable value seems to me to ignore the central point that is at stake. After all, the consideration is not the annual value of the house, but the suitability of the house for the purpose
to which we intend to devote it and the general circumstances regarding the house which make it ready and accessible for the purpose. I trust, therefore, that my right hon. Friend will stand firm against the mischievous English precedent, from which we continually suffer in Scotland, and refuse the introduction of any limit in the rateable value. The second point of criticism deals with a proposal, if I understand it correctly, to extend the power of the local authority to interfere with any exceptional rates of remuneration which are being offered in any district for the purpose of attracting labour away from the erection of house property and forming what was described in the introductory speech as a bribe. That is simply another variety of one of the great industrial evils experienced in Great Britain during the War, namely, the so-called jumping of the district rates, sometimes by the operatives and sometimes by the employers, for the purpose of obtaining an unfair advantage in some cases, or of overtaking certain work regarded as urgent in character. I am not opposed to any section of the people getting any advantage to which they are entitled, but if, in the building trade of Scotland, we allow the evil of bribes to any class, there cannot be the slightest doubt that we are introducing into the industrial structure something which will be disadvantageous to many trade unions, will penalise a good many employers, and will certainly react with very great force upon the consumers, whose interests it is primarily my right hon. Friend's intention to protect.
I have come to the conclusion that we have a great deal to gain by a standard rate, where it is generous and fair and liberally interpreted, and if once we embark on this principle in Scotland we are put into the sphere, approximately, of time and line contracts, and we all know what they cost this country during the War. Personally, I should very strongly support the proposal in the Bill, but the criticism I propose to offer is that if the bribe is to be dealt with in the case of workmen, why should you not look at the bribes which in some cases are offered to employers as well? There is not the slightest doubt that bribes, or fancy payments, or considerations of an exceptional kind,
are regularly, or, at all events, frequently offered to employers in order to get them to undertake certain work. I have had statements on these lines made to me by Scottish builders of the very highest repute.
The third part, and, to my mind, perhaps the most important, deals with problems of so called luxury buildings. My right hon. Friend (Sir Henry Craik) suggested that if we interfered in any way with the erection of almost any building in Scotland at the present time we should penalise certain classes of operatives, and he gave by way of illustration the case of the carved stone workers, and the men who face stones, and there are other people of exceptional skill engaged upon what we should call the fancy or decorative parts of housebuilding. In reply to that criticism, with which, from the point of view of Scottish craftsmanship I have the greatest personal sympathy, I only wish that it had a real foundation in the facts of the Scottish building trade. It is a lamentable tragedy that over the whole of Scotland we are training hardly any apprentice masons at all. I question whether there are six or a dozen in the whole land. What is more important on the particular point we are discussing is that the hand-dressing of stone in Scotland, and the so-called hewing and facing, which engaged large numbers of men in the past in a fairly remunerative calling, has practically disappeared, in the main because of the introduction of machine-faced stones, and my right hon. Friend would be the last to suggest that we should turn aside or divert what is a pronounced economic tendency of a beneficial character in Scottish housing. [Interruption.] My right Hon. Friend opposite (Sir Henry Craik) suggests that it may be bad for the stone, but the fact we have to face is that this element has been introduced. I believe permanently, into Scottish housing, and there is not the slightest doubt that it has reduced very considerably, or it did reduce in pre-War times, the amount of time necessary to overtake numerous public and other contracts in which builders were engaged.
On the narrow question of luxury building, the criticism I desire to offer is mainly this: Are the proposals of the Bill adequate in existing conditions in Scotland? On this side of the House we have no desire to stop the erection of
any kind of building for amusement, or anything else, if that building is required, and if, in our opinion, it is not going to interfere with the provision of property which is entitled to prior place because, of economic tendencies and the needs of the present time. To my mind the whole question is one of priority. There cannot be the slightest doubt from the point of view of material output, from the point of view of the employment of labour, and certainly from the point of view of the most urgent public needs, that dwelling-houses are entitled to priority. The mobility of labour has practically passed away in many of the industrial and mining parts of Scotland. You cannot move people because there are no houses. That has inflicted a very great injustice and a very large measure of loss upon Scotland at the present time, when we are struggling to reconstruct the industries we had before the War, and to build up new industries for the markets that undeniably are open to us in different parts of the world.
I would be prepared to put dwelling houses in the first category, and I should be prepared also to take strong steps, by perfectly fair means, to compel both builders and operatives to concentrate on that part of our business. Places of amusement can wait, and many other buildings of a character not urgently required can easily be postponed where it is shown that the material and the labour devoted to them could be used for dwelling houses in the locality. I should therefore establish a kind of priority, putting dwelling houses first, and then, in the second place, giving a preference to certain types of industrial property. Certain factory accommodation is being provided because of the influence of Excess Profits Duty and other taxation. It is not suggested by the owners of these buildings that they intend to use all that accommodation at an early date. For some time the accommodation will be more in the nature of a store. They have put it up partly because of that taxation, partly because of other conditions, and partly because they are satisfied that in the long run they will be able to find economic use for it. I know one case where thousands of bricks have been used in a building of that kind, and side by side with the very position on what that so-called fac-
tory has been erected you have housing accommodation of the worst description and a housing scheme of the local authority being delayed because of difficulties affecting labour and materials which, so far, they have not been able to supply.
It is plain to every Scottish Member who looks at this impartially that dwelling houses must, for the most part, precede the factories. It is idle to erect factories if we have not accommodation for the workers who will be engaged in them, and my difficulty on this particular Clause is that I am not sure that it is going to give us the precise scheme of priority that we certainly require. I am very much afraid that what will happen will be that the tenders or the preparations for the erection of certain classes of property will be proceeded with, and then the cases will go to the tribunal. Even if we speed up the procedure, some time must necessarily be lost, and probably money unnecessarily expended, in getting these tenders or provisional contracts, only to find that they may be turned down because of the views of the tribunal. If we first of all set up a declared scheme of priority, issued either by the Board of Health or by any other authority responsible, and said that that would substantially show the lines on which we were proceeding, we might probably do something to divert both capital and labour to house property, and in the long run avoid some of the delay which is one of the dangers of the Clause as now framed. That is really all the criticism, and very largely it is Committee criticism, which I desire to offer, but reverting in a sentence or two to the argument which my right hon. Friend advanced, I should say the kind of interference on which the Secretary of Scotland is embarking at the present time can be justified economically, and I am quite convinced that it will be advantageous in the present industrial conditions of Scotland.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: This Bill is well meant, but I do not know that it is a very powerful contribution to a very vexed question. The last speaker said that the houses should precede the factories. I do not think he is right there. That is just what our British civilisation is largely suffering from. We have concentrated the industries,
especially in Scotland, in our great towns, and we have there a density of population that is not at all to the public good. It does not do to have great masses of people on a small acreage, living in huge tenements one on top of the other. What we want to see is a spreading of the population; we want to see the population more like what it would have been had it not been for the short-sightedness of the railways in 1837, when they forbade road traction. I should have liked, therefore, to have seen some indication in this Bill of means of drawing the population from large centres and the spreading of factories and industries into the smaller places in Scotland to which might be drawn some of the population now in the larger places. It would be much better, both for the health of the people and for industry itself. It is an immense pity that some -provision of that kind could not be made. I am inclined to agree with the last speaker in his suggestion there should not be any limitation in the rental of the houses which may be acquired. I should like to know from the Secretary for Scotland, in regard to many houses of four or five stories, now almost uninhabitable under the present conditions of industry and domestic service, if the powers given in this Bill will cause the disappearance of the restrictive covenants in the title deeds of those houses. It is provided that regard should be had to the cost of putting the houses into a condition reasonably fit for human habitation, and that cost is to be taken into account in fixing the rent. I am afraid very little rent will be paid for any of these houses by the time they are fit for habitation if the local authority is to charge against the tenant the cost of making them reasonably fit.
There is one danger about this class of legislation which has already had a dire effect. There was a shortage of housing accommodation before legislation dealing with house property was brought in, and it will not do to absolutely frighten people from building. It has been the practice in the past to build houses for generations to come. I do not think that either the State or county councils or borough councils are the proper bodies to provide the population with houses, and I believe it will be found very undesirable to live in State-owned tenements in days to come.
Provision is made for putting these houses into a condition reasonably fit for human habitation, and I notice that the Bill is only to last until the year 1923. But there is no corresponding provision for restoring the houses to their owners in the condition in which they were when they were taken over. In common fairness that ought to be done. If you are going to take these houses and fit them up as flats, to put in cooking ranges on every floor, and to provide sinks, and washing accommodation, you will be altering probably the whole character of the houses, and surely it is only proper that provision should be made, when the houses are finished with, that the owners should not be put to the cost of getting rid of all these fixtures and of restoring the houses to their former condition. I do not believe the owners of these big houses will be very much averse to the proposals of this Bill. Most of them probably will be glad to get rid of the tall ghastly tenements that their ancestors erected. The whole cause of the housing trouble in Great Britain has been the pernicious habit of one generation building for generations to come, instead of dealing merely with its own generation. No doubt the owners of the houses will be glad to have the buildings back, but they will not want the internal alterations and fittings which have altered practically the whole nature of the house, and therefore I suggest that when the buildings are returned to them they should be restored as far as possible to their former condition.
It is noteworthy that of all these new Acts of Parliament it is said at the beginning that they are to do very little and only to last a short time, yet in nearly all cases they falsify those promises. When Regulations have been made under D.O.R.A. there is always an excuse found for continuing them, and the reason for that is that a considerable number of bureaucrats are brought into being by them. As in the case of the Labour Exchanges, the Liquor Control Board, the Food Control, and other Ministries of that nature, these bureaucrats find innumerable excuses for continuing in being, and the result is that the body of the State is being consumed by officials. The curious thing was that when war stopped and the Armistice was signed the really competent men who, in pre-War days, were able to make a good living
in their private businesses, immediately rushed back to those businesses and left the State with the duds. Apparently nothing but death will remove them. The worst of it is they are apt to reproduce their like.
I come now to Clause 31. Sub-section (3), and I must say I was very interested to hear both from the Labour benches and from the Secretary for Scotland that for a man to be offered a big wage is to offer him a bribe. That is terrible. I thought the chief aim of the whole Trade Union movement was to get higher wages. I consider it a most insulting phrase and a most improper one. After all, is ability never to get its chance, simply because it works with its hands? In the learned professions the man at the top of the tree, as the Secretary for Scotland well knows by personal experience, is always getting a bribe in the shape of bigger fees than other people, and he gets them because of his competence. Is he going to bar the labouring man and the ordinary worker from getting more pay? Is the worker to have no chance of receiving something extra because of his competence? Is the working man always to be tied down to one level? The suggestion of Sub-section (3) is that there is to be power to prohibit the construction of any works or buildings where it appears to the authority that the provision of dwelling accommodation for their district is being-delayed by a deficiency of labour due to the payment of remuneration in any form to persons employed on the construction of those works or buildings in excess of the remuneration commonly recognised by employers and trade societies in the districts. I do not think that is a fair Clause at all.
Take the case of the city of Glasgow. There is never a day but that I get letters from unfortunate people carrying on small businesses, stating that, owing to the lack of business premises, their own premises are being taken over their heads at a very much increased rent. A result of the payment of these increased rents is that rapidly more private buildings are being converted into business premises. Business premises are generally a costly class of building, and if you are going to make it impracticable to get on with the erection of them, by refusing to allow the class of labour em-
ployed on them to get a higher rate of wage, you will be injuriously affecting a very large class of the community. Surely a man in the labour market is worthy of his hire—not of his neighbour's hire. He should be paid on his own merits, and one may depend upon it that if he is getting higher pay for the work he is doing, it is because that particular work in that particular community is the very work which that community most desires to have carried out. That is inevitable. What is the amount of labour employed on picture houses? One could easily make a sentimental grievance on that point. Personally, I hate these places, and should not object if they were all shut up. They are almost as bad for the eyesight as the printing to be found in the average schoolroom. In this connection, of course, you will have pedantic local tribunals, generally composed of people who have never been able to do business successfully on their own account, coming in and stopping business premises being put up. The demand for business premises is one of the most insistent demands to-day. It is just as urgent as the demand for housing, and I demur entirely to any power being given under this Bill which will tend to prevent the erection of business premises.
Again, in Clause 4 I find there is a tendency to centralise, and to set up a bureaucratic authority with power to interfere with the local authority. We have that in practice in every department of Scottish life. There is always a central authority. You may give the local authority a little power, but the real power is in the central authority, which can overrule and over-ride the local authority. We find, in Sub-section (4), that the Board has the power to spur the local authority on in the exercise of the powers committed to its discretion. The central body, however, is liable to be influenced by ill-informed gossip, or, perhaps, by the pedantic ideals of some official in the head Department. What is the good of giving a local authority discretionary power if you are going to give to other persons, whose discretion cannot be nearly so well informed, the power to interfere with them? It will be noticed, too, that the central authority is only to interfere in one direction. It is not to have any power to stop some local authority which has become unduly zealous, and is exercising its powers without any
discretion at all. Why is it not taken both ways? You might have a snap election in some local authority, whereby a few hot-headed extremists might be put in who would take some extraordinary and extravagant action, but there is no provision for the central authority to interfere with them. If people want to be sensible, the central authority may come in and interfere, but if they take rash action the central authority will leave them alone. That Sub-section only adds to the power of the central bureaucracy, and I hope that it will be amended.
I have a great objection to these tribunals. I do not see why we should not have the tribunal that we have at present. These panels of persons, very shortly after they are appointed, will be wanting salaries. It is simply another of those non-judicial bodies to which people are generally appointed because of the views they hold. I think that the body we have at present has been perfectly satisfactory, and the very fact that it has differed from the head bureaucracy is primâ facie evidence of its capacity to do its work. It was a local, well-informed body that knew the circumstances. What is the use of having a local tribunal if it is always going to agree with the central body? I think that the fewer we have of these little Star Chambers up and down the country the better. No one wishes to interfere with any attempt that shows a likelihood of dealing with a serious evil, and this measure may have the effect, in one or two places, of meeting the housing shortage; but I think that a Bill of a much simpler character, making use of the machinery already in the hands of the local authorities, and simply giving the power to take possession of houses fit for habitation without reconstruction, was really all that was necessary, and that the further Clauses incorporated in this Bill are adding needless expense to what is otherwise a well-meant effort.

Mr. RODGER: The Bill has not received a very warm reception on this side of the House, but I am content to leave that to the Minister in charge. It certainly does not appeal to the rights of property, but we recognise that we are under special conditions just now, and that some of those things which we regarded as rights might, for the time being, be set on one side. Having regard to the extreme urgency of the
question, we do not want to be too careful about all the rights of property. I was told last week of a case in which 13 people were living in one apartment. That is a state of things which should not exist in any part of our land. During the War, men who should have been building houses were fighting to protect the rights of property, and, now that they have come home, we must forego some of our rights in order that they may get theirs.
It seems to me that Clause I ought almost to be made a little wider. It only deals with houses which can be used without reconstruction or alteration. I do not know where, in a big city like Glasgow, for instance, there are any houses that can be used without some kind of reconstruction to make them suitable for the purpose intended. I do not know exactly to what length it may be possible to go, but something must be done in order to render available any houses that can possibly be made use of. With regard to Clause 2, a year is too little, in my opinion, under present conditions, and I agree the period during which the subsidy is in force should be made a little longer. As to Clause 3, I, am not at all concerned about its operation. I do not think that luxury buildings will be interfered with unless they interfere with housing; but it is a good thing to have the power so that, if necessary, it can be exercised. No one wants to see luxury buildings put up when houses ought to be put up instead. When the urgent demand is satisfied, there will be plenty of time for luxury building.
The great trouble just now in Scotland is the want of building materials, particularly bricks and cement. In Lanarkshire bricks are being produced which are being sent across the Border. Something ought to be put into the Bill which would give to the locality the first call on locally manufactured bricks, so that they might be kept near at hand for the immediate work of building in the surrounding district. It costs a great deal to send bricks to the South and then to bring bricks back from the South, and a great saving might be effected, and the work would go forward more quickly if we could make use of the bricks produced in our own locality. Something, too, might be done in the way of using stone. A builder told me on Saturday that he was satisfied that very good cottages could be built of stone
almost as cheaply as of brick. I hope that the Bill will get a Second Reading, and that it will go through very quickly and help us in the great problems with which we are faced.

Mr. TAYLOR: I welcome this Bill, more especially as I was a member of the Committee on the Bill of the Ministry of Health. I listened to the discussions on the English Bill, but we Scottish Members thought that we had no right to interfere then, as there were many English members who wished to speak, and we knew that we should have our opportunity when a complementary Bill for Scotland was brought forward. We welcome the fact that in Clause 1 there is no limit as to rental. Everyone who was in the Committee on the English Bill recognised that the rental limit of £35 for houses that were to be acquired made that Clause of the Bill inoperative, because there are no houses of that type standing empty, at any rate in London, at the present time. I hope that in the case of the present Bill there will be no limit, because it is the larger houses that are empty, and those are the houses that we must get if we are to meet the shortage.
I cannot understand what has been said by some hon. Members as to the large expenditure that will be required before such houses can be put into a fit state for habitation. We have to take into account the fact that there are sometimes 16 or 18 persons living in a house of two rooms and a kitchen. I do not see any reason why these large houses should not be apportioned out so that each family may have one or two rooms, and that could be done without any great reconstruction. I hear an hon. Member ask about cooking, but that question shows a lamentable ignorance of the facts in London to-day. I remember, as a young man, living in lodgings in London 40 years ago, and what was happening then is happening to-day. A house containing, perhaps, 10 rooms is let to one individual from top to bottom, and there is only one kitchen for the whole house. These rooms are let out, one, perhaps, to two young men, another to two young women, another to a family of one or two people, and so on; and the only place that they have for cooking is either the kitchen range on the ground floor or the bedroom fireplace.
If that is allowed in London, as it is in thousands of cases, why cannot it be allowed in a large mansion, so as to give accommodation to our soldiers and sailors who have come home? This is only a temporary measure, and I am certain that the people who want houses—and, after all, they are the people to be considered —will be satisfied with that accommodation. Therefore I hope that the limit of £35 will not be introduced into this Scottish measure.
I welcome, also, the provision extending the time for the receipt of the subsidy. It has been asked why there have not been more houses erected with the subsidy in Scotland. One reason was that the subsidy, to begin with, was not sufficient, and, when the original Bill was before the Scottish Committee, many of us pressed upon the Secretary for Scotland that £150 was not a sufficient sum to induce people to go on with building. It was increased to £250, and the result was that a very much larger number of people took the subsidy and went on building houses. I agree with the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Rodger) that the period of one year should be extended to two or even three years. I welcome also the extension of the power to prevent luxury building. Any Scottish Member who has gone down and addressed his constituents knows, especially if a cinema is being erected in his constituency, the great indignation that is aroused amongst the people, because no difficulty is placed in the way of that kind of building either in regard to materials or labour, while dwelling-houses cannot be got. It may not have been that the cinema prevented the erection of dwelling-houses, but still there was the fact that these buildings were being erected while no houses were being provided for the people. You could not get them to believe that the one had not some effect on the other. Therefore, I welcome the continuation of that Clause.
I also welcome the alteration in the constitution of the Appeal Tribunal, because, rightly or wrongly, the people of the right hon. Member for Springburn's City thought that the tribunals did not act fairly. In Glasgow they appealed against sixteen decisions, and fifteen were allowed. Perhaps after the change in the constitution the tribunals will do
better for all. I welcome the change in the constitution, and I hope that the tribunals will pay more attention to local opinion than the last one did. The right hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir H. Craik), who is recognised as an authority on education, but not on buildings and not on the powers of local authorities, deplored the fact that in this Bill a Committee is to consider and have the power to say whether luxury building should be allowed or not. If he knew as much about the constitution and working of local authorities as some of us do he would know that the Streets and Buildings Committee is the Committee that has to do with the erection of buildings under the Housing and Town Planning Act, and they are the parties most competent to deal with this question and to see that their schemes are not interfered with by luxury building. It is no new principle for a Committee of that kind, whose principal business is to deal with buildings, to be entrusted with this duty. Their minutes and their decisions come up for approval at meetings of the Town Council, and these meetings are not long delayed. There can only be a fortnight at the most between the decision of the Committee and the decision of the Town Council. Therefore there is not much weight to be placed upon the opinion of the right hon. Member for the Scottish Universities in objecting to this Clause.
The Clause which deals with the limitation of wages and with any bribe that may be offered to workmen in the shape of larger pay over and above the trade union rates of wages is also a Clause to be welcomed. Anyone who has had anything to do with building during the War can well remember that over and over again men were taken from one job and one locality and transferred to another job in another locality and paid 1d., 2d., or 3d. an hour more to induce them to go to that work. It was easy to do that at that time, because the builder who was erecting buildings for the Government was not paid by contract prices, but' was paid 10 per cent. on his actual cost. Therefore, if he offered 3d. an hour more to his men, that was added to the cost of the building, and he got an increased profit. That is what is happening to-day. In connection with luxury buildings, cinemas, etc., there is no limit to the price that may be paid in the desire to get
the buildings quickly. They are so anxious to get their building that they are willing to pay any prices to the builder, and the builder offers men engaged in the building of houses under the municipality in a city like Glasgow 1d., 2d., or 3d. an hour more to work at the building of cinemas, etc. You cannot blame the men for going. I am not blaming them for going; but it has a serious effect on the housing schemes. The housing schemes are held up. There is a limited number of men in Scotland, as well as in England, for building, and the housing schemes are held up by the transfer of men from house building to luxury building. Therefore I welcome this Clause, which prevents any employer offering more than the trade union rate of wages in his district with the object of taking men away from the building of houses Li order to erect luxury buildings.
I welcome also Clause 6, which gives the local authorities power to sell the houses that they are erecting, and allows the buyers to pay for those houses by annual instalments. In this way a great number of working men will be able to acquire their own house, and will become their own landlord. It does not matter whether it is a municipality or private individual that is building the house, if the man is to go on paying rent all his life he is no nearer owning his own house than he was under the old system if facilities are not given to enable him to purchase his house by annual instalments. This Clause will give him an opportunity, if he has a little money over and above paying his rent, to acquire his house by annual instalments in ten or twenty years. I welcome the Bill, and I hope it will have a safe and quick passage through the House.

Mr. ROBERTSON: The right hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir H. Craik) levelled his criticism against this Bill because the Secretary for Scotland in framing it had taken an English model. I do not object to a Bill for Scotland being based on the model of a Bill for England if it is a good Bill and a good model. Having regard to the very learned criticisms of Ministers in this House from learned Members for Scottish Universities, they ought to be able to bring forward a Bill that can pass as a good model. The hon. Member for the Spring-burn Division (Mr. Macquisten) in discussing this question said that in housing
legislation there should be a desire or an attempt to take the people from congested areas and to spread the housing more over the country than it is at the present time. I heartily agree with him, and I do not want to accuse him of inexperience, but he must have forgotten that even in the smallest village the shortage of houses and the overcrowding is as great as it is in the city of Glasgow which he represents.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: indicated dissent.

Mr. ROBERTSON: The hon. Member shakes his head. I am not going to enter into an argument with him here, but if he cares to spend an afternoon with me any day I will show him houses in villages that are as overcrowded as the worst houses that exist in Glasgow. There is also criticism about the proposed power to take over unoccupied houses. When the English Bill was before Committee, we were told this was an attempt to violate the rights of property and to get possession of houses belonging to people who had probably two or three houses. I object to the broken-down derelict houses of the rich and well-to-do being handed over to the workers, just as I would refuse, or, at any rate, I would only do it after considerable objection, to wear the cast-off clothing of the rich and well-to-do. We want good houses, brand new houses, for the workers, under good conditions. In criticising this measure, hon. Members must not forget that we are dealing with a shortage of houses. Whatever the conditions may be, whatever the circumstances may be, there is a shortage of houses. I do not know whether I could pass an elementary examination in political economy, but I hope I do know a little about ordinary, common humanity. I know that there are empty houses, and that in my visitations to the working classes I find, as I did in one case, 16 sleeping in a two-apartment house, including a father and seven of a family, the father having served in the Great War, and one of the seven having just been discharged from a consumptive sanatorium. I also read in the newspaper to-day that a man who joined up in 1914, who was wounded five times and also gassed, died a week last Saturday and still remains unburied, that he left a widow and two children, and that for two or three days the body lay in the
room in which the family were living. It may be said that this is sentiment. It is not sentiment, but hard fact. There are thousands of cases under similar conditions to-day. The hon. Member for Springburn referred to the great difficulty there would be in converting these large houses into proper dwellings for the classes who are not housed at the present time. Again, if he cares to take advantage of my offer, I could take him to hundreds of houses where they have only a single apartment, 12 feet by 10 feet, where there are two beds in the one room, where there is no washhouse, no sanitary arrangements of any kind, and this is within the shadow of a palace, within the shadow of a riding school that could give ample accommodation, and within sight of dog kennels that would be comparative palaces for the workers to live in. Then hon. Members come forward and argue for the rights of property. The rights of humanity come first.

Sir F. BANBURY: No.

6.0 P.M.

Mr. ROBERTSON: You and I differ. If I have to make my choice—I may be wrong—between having an empty house and a non-housed child, I will house that child even if it violates all the rules under the canopy of Heaven. The right hon. Member for the Scottish Universities referred to the unholy alliance between Capital and Labour upstairs on the English Bill. An employer of labour voted with the representatives of labour. I hope that on the Labour Benches we do not act upon the principle that no employer of labour has a heart for the better housing of the working classes. I would advise the learned Member to revise that opinion of his about the unholy alliance with his friends on the same Benches, who are continually telling us that the only thing to take the country out of the difficulty in which it is at present is by an alliance between the workers and the employers, and while, on the one hand, they say that such an alliance is admirable, yet when we act with the employer we are condemned for entering into an unholy alliance. It has been stated that this proposal to limit the work in connection with luxury building and prohibit bribes is preventing the workman from getting the fruits of his labour. I am sorry that in-
dividuals who are trained in the examination of arguments should condescend to criticism of this kind.
It is not intended in any respect to prevent any man getting the advantage of his ability as a worker in the building trade. The purpose is to prevent an individual, who may be an employer of labour, for his own selfish interests and finds that it would be more to his advantage than housing, trying to bribe away men from what is considered essential work in connection with the housing of the people. So far as that is concerned, we should, at least, get the credit of being unselfish. We have always been blamed for the "ca-canny" policy, for being out to rob the State and the employer, by getting the highest wage possible for the least possible work. But here we have hon. Members acting on the very unselfish principle that housing is the first consideration, no matter what wage may be offered to the working man. We who come in contact with the worker who is interested in work of that kind are prepared to say to these individuals that the building of houses is the most essential consideration, and we will use our influence to prevent the building of houses being interfered with. I do not say that this is the last word in housing. It is a very small contribution, but we on the Labour Benches welcome it and hope sincerely that the Secretary for Scotland will have the Scottish tenacity to stick to the English model and not have the Bill to a large extent destroyed, as the other Bill was, upstairs in Committee.

Captain ELLIOT: The provisions of Clause 2, extending the length of time in which subsidised houses can be constructed, are essential in Scotland. We have suffered far more than England from the fact that advantage has not been taken of the offer of a subsidy to private builders. The Secretary of Scotland gave figures which show that there are 1,400 houses in Scotland qualified for the building subsidy, and I understand that the latest figures show that in England the number is some 25,000 houses. That is almost eighteen times as many houses have been built by private enterprise in England as in Scotland, and if this Clause was necessary in the case of England, it is much more necessary for Scotland. It is a strange thing that practically all the
criticism of this afternoon has been given to the question of priority for the construction of houses and the slowing down of the construction of factories, cinemas, etc. I remember only a few days ago the Secretary for Scotland pointed out that he intended to press on, as far as possible, relief works and all sorts of schemes by the local authorities to prevent unemployment, and that within a few days of this promise to do everything possible to employ people we should be discussing how certain enterprises can be kept back seems to me to be very anomalous.
The essence of it is, as the hon. Member for North Lanarkshire has said, that we want to increase the supply of building materials in every possible way. If you put up a factory so much the better, or if you put up a cinema so much the better, but the important thing is that there should be a surplus of building materials and not a deficiency which makes it necessary to ration these things as if they were fine gold. If the attention of the people of Scotland were drawn to this extraordinary fact, that the Department of Building Materials under which we have to work in Scotland is a purely English Department which is run from Whitehall, and that the Secretary for Scotland himself has no control over this Department, then it might be more apparent why we are suffering so badly from a shortage of building materials in Scotland. My right hon. Friend might consider whether in Scotland, at any rate, the operation and influence of the Department could not be done away with and a free market left for building materials in Scotland; because it has been productive of a great deal of unnecessary transport of building materials to and fro in Scotland, and has not effected its main purpose of inducing a plentiful supply of building material. In my own constituency, far from producing a supply of building materials, the plant for the production of bricks has been enormously diminished. Great brick works with a capacity of 150,000 bricks a day have been torn down and scrapped within the last year or two. If the Department permits that sort of thing to go on it fails in its primary duty of providing more building material for housing in Scotland, and obviously we are not getting any benefit from it, and might as well give way and leave it
to private enterprise to provide building schemes for housing in Scotland.
There is an extraordinary provision in Clause 3 to prohibit a working man receiving a higher wage than the ordinary remuneration of his district. It may be necessary, but I was surprised to hear it advocated from the Benches. It seems the strangest thing if, as we know, skilled labour for house building is short in Scotland, and that, as the hon. Member for Central Elinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) said, the supply of skilled stonemasons has almost disappeared, and we now have stone machinery, which is a very bad thing for stone, and leads to the decay of the stone afterwards when the rain or weather gets at it, so that it is not a good thing, that the small remnant of skilled men who still exist should be crushed out of existence altogether. It is a most fantastic suggestion. However, if Labour people agree to it, I certainly think that they will hear more of it from their own constituents. In this, as in many other things, they are not representing the will of the labouring class in Scotland. The hon. Member for Bothwell (Mr. Robertson) referred to hovels which exist in the shadow of palaces. I take it that he was referring to Hamilton Palace, but the local council have frequently had under consideration the question of converting Hamilton Palace into dwellings for the working classes, and it is certain that this great palace will be torn down, because it would be more expensive to convert it into dwellings for the working classes than to build dwellings alongside of it. Therefore I think that it was disingenuous of the hon. Member to refer to these hovels existing under the shadow of a great palace, with the obvious inference that this palace might be held up as against the use of the working classes by some wealthy person who had not the true interests of the working classes at heart.
Our main need is building material, and in reference to that Sub-section which says that the local authorities shall have power to execute works which are incidental to the carrying out of schemes, I would like to know if it does include works for the production of materials with which houses may be constructed? I would also suggest that the subsidy houses should be pressed on by all pos-
sible means, and that the subsidy might possibly be increased in the case of buildings made of stone, which will last longer than the brick houses which are generally constructed. I would also suggest that if possible the subsidy might be granted for the reconstruction of certain houses. I do not know whether these suggestions are practicable, but I make them with the sincere desire not to oppose, and not even to delay, any scheme which would remedy the desperate congestion and overcrowding which we deplore so deeply in Scotland.

Dr. MURRAY: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland on exercising the national virtues of caution and prudence in allowing the unsophisticated English Minister of Health to try his hand on this sort of Bill before venturing on it himself, and to find out from his experience that he could not tread in the same direction in certain respects. I also notice that when what is conversationally called housing reform comes before the House nearly all the destructive criticism comes from his own side of the House. The hon. and learned Member for Springburn (Mr. Macquisten) in his interesting speech, was loud in his denunciations of bureaucracy. I am not surprised at that from him, but I am surprised that my right hon. Friend the Member for the Scottish University (Sir H. Craik) should share that denunciation of bureaucracy, because one of the most vivid pictures of local government in my mind is seeing the school boards and schoolmasters in Scotland wriggling under the iron hand of the most despotic bureaucracy in the United Kingdom, the Scottish Education Department. Never was it ruled with such a despotic hand as when my right hon. Friend was head of that Department. As I have said before, I am glad to acknowledge that it was a benevolent despotism and produced some excellent results. One result was that, while the influence of the right hon. Gentleman was devoted to Scottish education, there was reared a race which always sent a big Liberal majority to this House.
One of the fears expressed to-day was that some of the bigger houses would require so much reconstruction that the work would not pay. No local authority would take over such houses for this temporary purpose if it was necessary to spend a large amount of money for reconstruction. If local authorities want these
houses they have power to buy them under the Act of last year. I wish to reinforce the argument as to the need for an extension of the time for payment of the subsidy. In some parts of the country it has taken a long time to make people understand that these subsidies exist. In the crofting areas of Scotland the subsidies will be a most valuable help. The people can do a great deal in helping to build houses themselves, but even when they do give substantial help they will want an expert mason and joiner for a while, and such men are scarce in the Highlands. It will, therefore, be a long time before some of these people will be able to start work. As to the Regulations, I would suggest that the conditions laid down for houses in the rural districts, and especially in the Highlands, need not be as exacting as those for the crowded cities. I hope there will be some relaxation of the rules without making them what I might call less hygienic. I will make a further suggestion with regard to the payment of the subsidy. Under the present system the money is not paid until a house is completed. In those cases where men build a house for themselves I think the Scottish Office, through the Board of Agriculture, might make some arrangement, under their loan system, to give a certain amount of money at the beginning of building operations, in order that smallholders, crofters, and fishermen can start building for themselves.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Mr. C. D. Murray): On behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland, I can thank hon. Members, and particularly Scottish Members, for their reception of the Bill and for their frank discussion of it. We have had a fair and full debate, and I hope the House may now be in a position to decide the question of giving the Bill a Second Reading. A reason for saying that is that, with the exception of the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir H. Craik), each and all of the points of criticism have been frankly made as Committee points. Knowing, as hon. Members do, the Secretary for Scotland, I think his Scottish colleagues at least need no assurance that any suggestions made in Committee always will receive sympathetic consideration. There are only one
or two inquiries with which I have to deal. As to the first Clause, in the Bill as drafted it is not proposed to follow the limitations which have been inserted in the English Bill. It may be that it will be found that the conditions in Scotland vary somewhat, and it may well be that if we find the conditions to be such as should enable local authorities to have access to buildings which are suitable, it would be unfortunate by a mere limit of a few pounds for a local authority to be denied access to such houses. Reference has been made to reconstruction. We must to some extent depend on the discretion of local authorities. It has been asked whether it would not be possible under Clause 2 to extend the time of the subsidy beyond the period proposed. To some that might offer an attraction, but' there is something to be said on the other side. Experience has taught us that there is sometimes a danger in unduly extending the period. While there is time remaining there is a tendency rather to delay putting forward plans, but as the period shortens there is increasing acceleration in the presentation of plans. Although the House may not be impressed with the figures, there are still 1,425 houses at risk, so to speak, in respect of the subsidy. In Committee it may be thought that the extension of the time provided is not ample. In any case it would involve Treasury warrant.
Something has been said on the difficult question relating to the provision of building material. I think it would have been unwise to have attempted to deal with that in a housing Bill, but I desire to say that my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland is meeting the Scottish Members and the representative of local authorities next week, and the House will be glad to know that at present he is in conference with the Minister of Health on the subject. There is the further point with regard to the delegation of powers to a committee, under Clause 3. It is true that in order to avoid delay in decision it is proposed that a local authority should be entitled to delegate its powers in the first instance, though subject to confirmation, to a committee. The House may have not noticed the composition of that committee. It is a committee appointed upon the lines of committees under the Housing of the Working Classes Act, and it is not merely a local
authority committee, but a committee strengthened by co-opted members who are specially qualified to deal with the subject. There has been little criticism upon the terms of Clause 4. The House has already put its imprimatur upon this provision, and it would be most unfortunate if there were not some controlling power in order to urge on work regarding which the House is unanimously of opinion we must take all steps in our power. By Clause 4 it is proposed to strengthen the machinery so that local authorities may get over difficulties with regard to water, and so on. It seems also most desirable that the local authorities should be armed with the necessary power to finance these schemes. Subject to these points, which are each and all Committee points, I hope the House will find itself in a position to give a Second Reading to the Bill.

Sir F. BANBURY: I understand from what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said that we are to have another Bill, so that we are getting on. First of all we take people's houses away from them without proper compensation, and we limit the right of a workman to sell his labour at the best price, and now we are going to limit the right of the maker of bricks or cement to obtain the best price he can for those articles. It seems to me that we are going from bad to worse. Hardly a day passes without socialistic legislation of a kind which would not have been dreamt of three years ago, and the great supporters of the Government are the hon. Gentlemen who sit upon the Labour Benches. It is all very well to talk about the rights of humanity, and to say that there arc so many people in particular instances living in one room, but you are not going to remedy anything of that sort by this legislation, but you are going to make it worse. I earnestly hope when we have lost a considerable amount of money and stopped all private enterprise in almost everything, that in a few years we shall get a little common sense into the House of Commons, which, as far as I can see, is rapidly departing from it. It is absolutely absurd to suppose that this legislation is going to do any good of any sort or kind. Hon. Members talk about the shortage of houses being due to the fact that the men had gone to the War. It is due to nothing of the kind. It is
due to the Prime Minister and his Budget of 1910. From that moment we had the beginning in a small degree of this socialistic legislation which has gone on. The hon. and learned Gentleman says it is not intended to limit the price at which a man may sell his labour for more than a short time. We know when that time is over, if it suits and if it looks as if it will gain a few votes, the Act will be extended. I never did like an autumn Session, and I am sorry we have been brought back after a tedious and prolonged session which did very little good and a great deal of harm to an autumn Session which has done no good but a great deal of harm.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

Orders of the Day — REGISTRAR-GENERAL (SCOTLAND) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. MUNRO: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The object of this Bill is to amend the law regarding the appointment of a Registrar-General of births, deaths and marriages in Scotland. The appointment of that official is regulated to-day by the Lord Clerk Register (Scotland) Act, 1879, which provides for the appointment of a Deputy-Clerk Register, who shall be an advocate of ten years' standing and who shall receive a salary of £1,200 per year. That Act further provides that the Deputy-Clerk Register, without special appointment and without additional salary, shall also hold the office of Registrar-General for Scotland. Thus, the Deputy-Clerk Register ex officio becomes Registrar-General for Scotland. Sir James Patten-McDougall, who held the dual offices with great distinction since 1909, died in 1919, and the offices have since been vacant. I do not think I need enlarge on the view that the duties of Registrar-General in Scotland, as well as in England, have enormously increased both in volume and in importance in modern times. They comprise the work of the periodical census which is to take place on the 24th of April, 1921, as well as the work of vital registration. The import-
ance of these respective duties to the national interest is so obvious that I do not delay the House in order to stress the point. In my humble judgment it is beyond question, that the time has now arrived when the Registrar-General should be a person appointed expressly to perform the duties of that office, and the purely legal qualification that he should be a barrister of ten years' standing is wholly inappropriate to the duties of that particular office. This Bill proposes to give effect to that view. As to the finance of the Bill, regarding which I imagine some questions may be asked, I desire to meet in advance any such questions, so far as I can. It is proposed that the salary to be attached to the office of Registrar-General should be £850 per year, rising by yearly increases of £25 or £50 to a sum of £1,000. As regards the Deputy-Clerk's Register's office, I hope to be able to arrange for the distribution of his duties, at very little cost, among existing officials. There will thus be no additional charge on the Exchequer involved by this rearrangement, and I hope I am not going too far when I say that I trust a saving may even be effected. Accordingly, from the point of view of finance, I have no hesitation in commending this Bill to the House.

Mr. HOGGE: Does not Section 5 of the Act of 1879 involve the appointment of a Deputy Clerk Register at £1,200 per year?

Mr. MUNRO: I will look into the point, which can be met, if necessary, in Committee. Certainly the intention is that the salary attached to the position of Registrar-General shall not exceed £1,000 per year, even when the highest stage is reached, and so far as the Deputy Clerk Register's duties are concerned, those would be discharged by other officials who exist to-day, and with little extra cost. Therefore, with a salary of £1,000 for the Registrar-General, if the other duties can be discharged, say, at a cost of less than £200, a saving will be effected. I want to give an explicit pledge to the House that there will be no extra charge on the Exchequer involved by the passage of this Bill.

Mr. HOGGE: It is rather unfortunate that my right hon. Friend should ask us to give a Second Reading to this Bill at this time in view of the fact that we are
going to discuss on Thursday the question of economy. The only reason I can find is that some people are desirous of having the status of a particular office raised, but even that argument one is not entitled to use at a moment like the present unless we can arrange matters as suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, in the way which he has described. I am rather dubious whether he can do what he suggests. Under this Bill, Section 7 is to be abrogated, and Section 5 of the Act of 1879 deals with the position of Deputy Clerk Register. It is provided that he is to perform certain duties, and amongst them he is the Keeper of the Signet, which involves a considerable amount of legal work. Section 5 also provides that the Deputy Clerk Register shall be an advocate of the Scottish Bar of not less than 10 years' standing, and that he shall have a salary of £1,200 per year out of moneys voted by Parliament. It is also provided that he shall, without special appointment or additional salary, hold the office with all the powers and duties of Registrar-General of Births, Deaths, and Marriages in Scotland. In the opinion of those who drafted the original Act the Deputy Clerk Register-apparently had so little to do that it is provided he should also perform the work of Registrar-General. My right hon. Friend to-day proposes to appoint a new official and to call him Registrar-General. It is proposed to appoint a man who understands that particular side of the work rather than a lawyer. The appointment of an advocate of the Scottish Bar also lends itself to patronage, and therefore there may be a good case for having another individual to do the work of registration and taking the census rather than an advocate. The money proposal is to give this new official £850, rising to £1,000, but I very much doubt whether you will get a good Civil Servant to accept a salary of £1,000. It means, I suppose, something less than £500 on the pre-War value of money. If we take the sum of £1,000, that leaves £200, and my right hon. Friend proposes to get all the work of the Deputy Clerk Register done by a number of other people for £200 or less. If he can get the whole of that work done for £200, this Deputy Clerk Register has been paid £1,000 too much ever since 1879. The Act then provided that the salary should be £1,200 for the work he was doing, and it contemplated that he was doing so little that in Section 7 it
added some other work which he was to do for nothing.

Mr. MUNRO: My hon. Friend, I am sure, desires to be fair. It was provided that he should do the other work without extra remuneration, it is true, but it was also in contemplation that £1,200, in being made the salary, was not paid in respect of the duties of Deputy Clerk Register alone, but also in connection with the duties of Registrar-General.

Mr. HOGGE: That may have been understood, but that is not what was done. If the Deputy Clerk Register is not required, why have a short Bill of this sort, which only deals with Section 7 of that Act of 1879? Why not do away with this office altogether, and then there will be no question about a re-arrangement of the work?

Mr. MUNRO: It is impossible to abolish the office of Deputy Clerk Register and to repeal the Section which deals with the salary until we have imposed the duties which he has to discharge on other people, as there are duties laid by Statute on the Deputy Clerk Register. This must be allocated among other officials before we can touch the question of abolishing the office and its salary, but in the meantime the office will not be filled, and the salary will not be paid.

Mr. HOGGE: Is my right hon. Friend prepared to commit himself to the abolition of this office as soon as he has made the necessary readjustments? If he will do that, we will support this proposal, insomuch as it does not impose a charge. I am perfectly willing that the £1,200 should be divided in the proportions which he now suggests, on condition that he abolishes the other post, because once that is done there will be no question of this Government or any future Government filling it up. This question of patronage does crop up from time to time, and this House and the country have a very short memory in these matters, and these things might easily be forgotten.

Sir G. YOUNGER: It seems to me that this is a mere matter of method as to whether you should deal with the question of the Deputy Clerk Register as well as the Registrar-General in this Bill, or whether yon should pass separate measures. Personally, I think it would
be more desirable to put both into one measure, but I think the assurance of the Secretary for Scotland should be quite sufficient for the House, namely, that there is no intention of making any extra cost. May I ask whether the re-arrangement of these offices is going in any way to expedite the settlement of the question of the Sasines Office? I was rather surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) did not mention that. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us what effect this Bill will have on that question, and to what extent we shall be able to know when the settlement of this vexed question will be reached.

Mr. A. SHAW: I should like to know why this important office has been vacant for so long—almost two years. It is an office which must have had a great deal of work to do. My right hon. Friend has told us that the salary which he proposes is £850, rising to £1,000, and I should like to know whether the sums mentioned cover all the emoluments of the office, or whether there are not any fees or other emoluments payable in addition. My third point arises out of the proposal in the first Clause, and the words at the end of that Clause which are put in italics, namely
and who shall receive out of moneys provided by Parliament such salary as the Treasury may fix."
I gather that there will be no additional charge, and in these circumstances neither I nor my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) can quite understand why these particular words should occur in this Bill. My fourth point is a very simple one. My right hon. Friend by this Bill is dealing with the man who is at the head of the Registrars of Scotland, and I would like to ask him whether in this Bill it would not be possible to insert a Clause—perhaps he will consider it with Mr. Speaker and the authorities—dealing with the grievance that is felt by the local registrars, who do their work with such great efficiency, and whose remuneration has remained unaltered since 1854. I know my right hon. Friend's sympathy with them and the answers which he has given to myself and to the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) on the subject show his sympathy; but many local authorities have done nothing whatever to increase the remuneration of these officers. If my
right hon. Friend could give any hint that legislation dealing with the salaries of these men would actually be brought forward either this Session or next Session, he would give a great deal of satisfaction to a body of men who have done their work in a most uncomplaining fashion, and who have really no political power and no possibility of bringing political pressure to bear.

Mr. C. D. MURRAY: As the hon. Baronet the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir G. Younger) has said, it is entirely a question of method. The questions of the Deputy Clerk Register and of the Registrar-General might have been dealt with, I think, in one Bill, but in order to get on, one position is now ready for solution, and although there has been considerable delay in filling up the office, the reason for that is known to this House, because quite recently the Secretary for Scotland stated—and I think hon. Members will agree that he was wise in so doing—that looking at the advantage of the reconstruction scheme, it was very advisable to proceed with some caution and from the experience of the year, to gain information as to how he could best allocate the office. It is for that reason that the delay has taken place, and it is because we have now that experience and are in a position to deal with the first part of the problem that this difference of method has arisen. We are ready now to deal with the Registrar-General, and we ask the House to do so. We will be immediately in the position of dealing with the office of Deputy Clerk Register, but in the meantime I am certain that Members of this House will accept the assurance of the Secretary for Scotland that it will not involve any additional Treasury charge.

Sir F. BANBURY: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman explain why it" is necessary to have those words in the first Clause in italics?

Mr. MURRAY: Because, although there is a statutory authority under the Act of 1879 to pay a salary, there is really a transference of the charge. One other matter only has been raised, and that is with regard to the local registrars. My hon. Friend (Mr. A. Shaw) is quite right in saying that that matter has been sympathetically considered by the Secre-
tary for Scotland already, and it is now receiving his consideration; but it would hardly be appropriate in a one-Clause Bill of this kind to deal with that which is s. totally alien matter. A question has been put up in regard to certain difficulties which have arisen in regard to the Sasines Office. That, again, is entirely alien to this Bill, but the position of that matter is this, that the head of the Sasines Office in Edinburgh has put forward proposals with regard to the adjustment of certain figures, and it is now before the Treasury.

Sir G. YOUNGER: It has been before the Treasury for years.

Mr. MURRAY: It has been before the Treasury for years, but the question of the adjustment of the figures is now before the Treasury again. With these explanations, I hope the House will now give a Second Reading to the Bill.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

Orders of the Day — DEFENCE OF THE REALM (ACQUISITION OF LAND) BILL. [Lords].

Order for Second Reading read.

Sir A. WILLIAMSON (Parliamentary Secretary, War Office): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
7.0 P.M.
It may be well to explain to the House that this is a Bill which comes from another place and which has there gone through searching criticism and some amendment. The policy of the Government is to divest themselves of land acquired during the War, which is now, in many cases, unnecessary for their purpose, as rapidly as possible. In the course of divesting themselves of some of this land, certain doubts have arisen as to the interpretation of the Acquisition of Land Act, 1916: that is, the principal Act. It is in order to make clear points of doubt, and to be able to give a good title to purchasers, that several of the Clauses in this Bill are being inserted. Other Clauses have been put in in order to cure certain defects which have become apparent in
the principal Act. The Bill itself is very technical, and is perhaps better fitted for discussion as to details in Committee than on the Second Reading. I will, however, endeavour to give an outline of the purpose of the Clauses. The necessity for Clause 1 may be illustrated by the case of land restricted by covenant for the purpose of building houses of a certain size or a certain rental. The Government acquires a portion of this land, and upon it erects a factory, disregarding, as it is entitled to do, the restrictive covenants which were imposed upon the land. Of course, the Government have to pay compensation for taking the land, and that compensation includes the freedom from the restrictive covenants. It is paid to the persons who are injured, but it has been suggested by lawyers that if the Government came to sell this land, with the factory which they had erected upon it, the restrictive covenants would revive. The practical effect of that would be that the sale of the land would be impeded, and possibly the total value of the factory might be less if the revival of the restrictive covenants was maintained There would be no buyers of a factory such as that. The loss to the State would undoubtedly be very great in money, and there would be a loss to the community, because such factories are useful, and indeed are urgently required for industry. In special cases, where the amenity of dwelling-houses or the protection and maintenance of a building scheme are of superlative importance, the removal of the restrictions in the covenant can only be done with the consent of the Railway and Canal Commission, so that there is a protection for an exceptional case. We all recognise that there are certain cases where no money compensation is adequate, and these cases are provided for by the proviso in Clause 1.
I come to Clause 2. A right of repurchase, or pre-emption, as it is called, was given in the principal Act. This right of pre-emption not only extended to the owner from whom the land, was taken, and to his successors, but if the owner or his successors did not exercise the right of pre-emption, then that right was to be extended to the adjoining owners. That has been found in practice to be a very cumbersome proceeding, and has really placed a barrier upon the possibility cf selling the land, because
each of these adjoining owners had six weeks in which to make up his mind. If he did not buy the land, it had then to be offered to another joint owner, and so on, until the whole neighbourhood had had the offer of the land. That caused a great impediment, and makes it very difficult to effect a sale. It is desired in this Clause to restrict the right of preemption to the owner and his successors in title. Clause 3 is the most important Clause in the Bill. Paragraph (a) refers to the purchase of land for the purpose of re-sale. A factory is built upon land which has not been purchased, and if it desired to sell the factory to the best advantage and the site, it is obviously necessary that the Government should purchase the land in order to offer that and the factory together. That becomes a purchase of the land for the purpose of re-sale. Section 3 of the principal Act authorises the purchase of land, and Section 5 authorises its sale. Curious as it may seem, however, some of the lawyers are of opinion that there is doubt whether, in fact, you can purchase for the purpose of re-sale. Consequently, Paragraph (a) of Clause 3 is necessary to clear away the doubt.

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: No case has been taken to the Courts?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I do not think that any case has been taken to the Courts. A case has been tried—I forget exactly the name at the moment—I think it that of MacGrill. I will tell the hon. and gallant Gentleman what the case is on the Committee stage, if we get to that point. At any rate, there is great doubt: and so great is the doubt that it makes it a serious impediment in handling the property of the State. It would be too great an advantage to the landowner if buildings, erected at enormous expense to the State, were to revert to him free, gratis, and for nothing. Then there is the cost of reinstatement. That cost, in some cases, is so great that it is better for the State to purchase the land and to sell it in the condition in which it is. There are cases where camps have existed, and where areas of land have been covered with blocks of concrete, and trenches have been dug for training troops. The cost of reinstating such land as that in its original condition would be very heavy indeed. It is desired by paragraph (a) to obtain power to purchase the land instead
of reinstating. There is a proviso which says that that power can only be exercised on the authority of the Railway and Canal Commission. Paragraph (b) defines the expressions used in the principal Act, "Government Department in possession," and "occupying Department." Some doubt has arisen as to the exact meaning of these words, and the paragraph makes it clear that it is the Department for the time being in possession of land which is meant. Paragraph (c) makes it clear that the Department has not ceased to be an "occupying Department" by reason of its having temporarily handed over the land to a munitions firm, or for some such purpose during the War. It has been held that that was a break in the possession, and therefore this paragraph is to make the matter clear. Paragraph (d) is intended to remove doubts as to the retention of the land under Section 13, if the purpose is different from the purpose for which it was originally taken. There seems to be a legal point there which also requires clearing up. Paragraph (e) is a corollary to paragraph (d), and it is therefore unnecessary to devote much explanation to it.
With regard to the second Sub-section of this Clause we propose to give the alternative of removing a building instead of purchasing the land. Sometimes these buildings have been erected on land which has not been purchased, and it is desirable to have the alternative of not buying the land at all, but of removing the buildings. That power is particularly required in the case of land owned by a municipality or a railway. If we had not that power we could not remove the buildings, and they would therefore remain the property of the municipality or the railway company respectively.
Clause 4 gives power to prescribe certain points with regard to tramways across a roadway and to the keeping of public highways closed. It refers to the giving of a decision within the period of two years or twelve months respectively. Curiously enough, it has been held by lawyers that under the terms of the principal Act a decision cannot be given until two years or twelve months have elapsed. It is a barrier to business and to concluding negotiations in connection with factories which are for sale when people cannot know, one case for two years, whether or not they will have a
perpetual use of the siding which serves the works,. It is desirable that there should be power to come to a decision without delay. Sub-section (2) of the Clause gives an appeal. The decision as to whether a siding crossing a roadway shall be left or not is at the present time in the hands of the local authorities. It seems unreasonable that there should be no appeal, because we have experienced the same arbitrary action in other cases, and it would be a very serious matter indeed if a factory were cut off from the use of a siding which would render the building perhaps almost useless and certainly much less valuable for the purpose of sale. There will be no dubiety about that, and it will be possible, not only to get a decision at once, but, if these powers be unreasonable, to appeal to the Minister of Transport to decide any doubt which may arise. Clause 5 amends the conditions of the principal Act in regard to railway companies and dock companies. This Clause has been agreed with those who represent the railway companies, and I do not think I need detain the House very long in explaining it.

Sir D. MACLEAN: Notwithstanding the fact that the Clause may have been agreed between the railway companies and the dock companies, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give a quite adequate explanation to the House. The House is entitled to know what is the whole position.

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I will do that with pleasure. It is a point of a technical nature, and will perhaps more easily be dealt with in Committee and by a lawyer than a layman. At the same time I will endeavour to explain the exact purport of the Clause. The Clause amends the provisions of the Act of 1916 relating to land belonging to railways, docks, etc. Sub-section (1) restricts the Government's power of purchase to land which had never been used for the purpose of the undertaking, providing the Railway and Canal Commission is satisfied it will not be required for the purposes of the undertaking. It also restricts the existing power of purchasing lands which, having been used for the purposes of the undertaking, have ceased to be so used, and to land which the Commission is satisfied will not be required for such purposes. Sub-section (2) makes it clear that the Ministry of Transport shall take
into account other considerations than those of transport—for example, finance —in considering whether an extension of temporary occupation should be granted. Clause 6 deals with easements, and it seems there is a doubt as to whether the enjoyment of an easement is the same thing as being in possession of an easement. Not being a lawyer, it is a little difficult to explain where the lawyers exactly find the difficulty; but we are advised that there is a case here requiring elucidation and explanation, and the intention of this Clause is merely to make it clear that enjoyment does mean possession. The case, I understand, is that of drainage and surface water, but particularly drainage, running from land in the possession of the Government into a drain belonging to somebody else, and it is desired to preserve the rights which are now enjoyed by the Government, as the occupier of the land, to the Government after the ratification of peace, or to the buyer of the land if the Government sell the land. That is the purpose of the Clause.

Sir D. MACLEAN: A very dangerous one, I should think.

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: My right hon. Friend says it is a very dangerous proposal. I dare say in Committee it will be possible exactly to explain where the difficulty lies, but I should have thought that this Clause, having passed the scrutiny of another place, where these questions are dealt with with scrupulous care, and with no lack of regard to the rights of property, the right hon. Gentleman might feel that his apprehensions were not well-founded. With regard to Clause 7, which refers to bye-laws for the safe use of military rifle ranges, it appears that at the present time there are a number of ranges which are held by the Government, and it is not known now exactly how many of these ranges will be permanently required. The use of these ranges by the Territorials and others is a matter of some uncertainty at the moment, and it is felt that it would be premature to give up these ranges entirely, or, rather, the bye-laws which govern them. As a matter of fact, there is a provision that the land on which these ranges exist shall be held for two years, I think, after the ratification of peace, but, curiously enough, the bye-
laws which interrupt the free use of the land for footpaths, and so forth, do not similarly extend, and it is obvious the ranges would not be of much use if you could not prevent people from traversing the danger zone. Consequently, it is sought to extend the bye-laws for two years, and partly because of the uncertainty of what will be permanently required and what will not, and also because of the slowness of procedure under the Military Lands Acts, under which it is intended, of course, to deal with the acquisition of rights of way across ranges in the ordinary way in time of peace. This is merely, therefore, an extension of the provision for two years. There is no question of taking away permanent rights, and the permanent arrangements will be made under the usual conditions of the Military Lands Acts.
Those are the main points in connection with this Bill. It is a Bill full of technicalities, as I said when I rose. It is not a Bill which is very easy for a layman to grasp at first sight. I have myself spent some little time in trying to master the details, and I hope I have at least given the House a rough outline of the provisions of the Bill. In Committee, if there are any points which seem to require elucidation or explanations, I shall be very pleased indeed to give those explanations, and to hear what arguments can be advanced against the provisions of the Bill. But, as I have said, the Bill has already received so much attention, that I hope the House will not find it very difficult to give it a Second Reading, and also that they will not find many Amendments, at any rate of any substance, are required in it.

Sir D. MACLEAN: My right hon. Friend has very truly said this Bill is an example of a very large number of legal conundrums presented to a lay assembly, and he derives some comfort in connection with that not very alluring prospect, owing to the fact that it has received some attention in another place. I have considerably more respect for another place than I used to have, but it does not absolve me, or any Member of this House, from the discharge of functions in regard to any Bill which comes to this House from another place. I suggest to hon. Members that this Bill requires very careful scrutiny in Committee. Certainly I agree with my right
hon. Friend that it is not a very fitting subject—at least, not a very easy subject —for debate on Second Reading. But let me draw the attention of the House to the two last Clauses to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. I cannot imagine any lawyer now listening to me not requiring some very careful elucidation of Clause 6, which says:
For the purposes of the principal Act and this Act, the exercise or enjoyment of any easement or right over or in relation to land shall be deemed to be possession of that easement or right.
That is a matter which requires to be very carefully considered, to see that whatever happens the general law with regard to easements and rights is not infringed upon in the least degree by this Bill, and to see that the effect of this Clause is very carefully safeguarded indeed. What about Clause 7? The practice which obtained during the War, that no question of rights of way or matters of that kind should interfere with the rifle ranges, was a very proper arrangement during war time, but one which I certainly would be very loth indeed to carry on into peace without some very strong reasons and arguments being adduced in its favour.

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: For two years.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I do not know what special reason there may be. There must be an immense number of rifle ranges available now for the relatively much smaller number of His Majesty's forces compared with two years ago. We had under arms in this country, practising almost daily at rifle ranges, I should think, some 200,000 men—sometimes more, and never less. I should say that the number of His Majesty's forces who require to practise at rifle ranges to-day is quite negligible compared with then, and there are no immediate prospects, one is thankful to know, of any necessity for augmenting His Majesty's land forces. If that is the case, what reason is there for carrying on this power for another two years? It seems to me such a Clause as that could be very well dropped out of the Bill. There is nothing in the action of the Executive, so far as I can see, in the presentation of this Bill, which gives me much confidence in the extension of the powers which they seek. As I have often said, what this House really must guard against is the
constant action of the Executive, very largely owing to the pressure of the Departments behind them, to carry into peace conditions of war. Here is an example. I see no reason at all why this power is sought for another two years. These powers will continue until the technical end of the War, and, therefore, so far as I can see, some months have still to run. The War Office have got these powers for months to come. They can very easily make such arrangements as are necessary in connection with the due facilities of his Majesty's land Force within that time, and, under those circumstances, I hope the Committee will strike out Clause 7 and bring that particular provision, at any rate, to an end. I am not able at present to offer any criticisms of real service to this House, other than to repeat what I have said, that these highly technical matters want very careful watching in the interests of the country, and never so much as now, when, owing to the practice of war—and rightly—things were done and left undone which would never have been tolerated in times of peace. I hope the Committee will give the most careful attention to this very complicated measure, and that when it arrives at the Report stage we shall be able to see that some of the safeguards, which a few, at any rate, of us wish to see inserted, will be found in the Bill as then presented.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir RHYS WILLIAMS: The number of rifle ranges available before the War was extraordinarily small, and a great many of them were not really fit for the purpose for which they were wanted. During the War a number of ranges have been found which are suitable for the purpose, and I do think the authority might be given at least two years to decide which of these rifle ranges might be kept and which might be given up. It is not asking for perpetuity, but only for two years in which to form an opinion as to which of these rifle ranges now in use should be kept for the purpose of training in rifle-shooting in this country.

Sir D. MACLEAN: May I say my objection is limited to those rifle ranges where public rights of footpaths and otherwise have been interfered with during war-time?

Mr. HOOD: I merely rise in the hope of eliciting some information from the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill with regard to the position of the common lands of the country under this Bill. It is within the recollection of the House that, during the War, a number of the common lands of the country, or parts of those lands, have been taken possession of by the War Office, and they are still in possession of those common lands. I refer more particularly to the position of Wimbledon Camp, which is within my constituency. Under the acquisition of Land Act. 1916, the War Office took possession of part of Wimbledon Common. They have erected huts upon it, and they are still in occupation. So far as I can see, although a good deal of pressure has been brought to bear upon the War Office, there is no undue haste on their part to give up possession of these lands. There is considerable apprehension on the part of my constituents as to when they are going to give up possession so the public may resume possession. If we turn to Clause 3, Sub-section (1) (a) we see the words.
the power of acquiring land or interest in land conferred by Section three of the principal Act authorises, and shall be deemed always to have authorised, such acquisition for the purposes of re-sale, in cases when such re-sale is required with a view to the realisation to the best possible advantage of the value of buildings and works erected.
I want to know whether this present Bill confers upon the Government Department concerned any additional rights for perpetuating the occupation of any land, or even enlarging the scope of their present occupation? This is a matter, which, as I suggest, is of great interest to my constituents, and I shall be glad to receive some assurance from the right hon. Gentleman on the subject.

Major KELLEY: I should like to hear from the right hon. Gentleman in charge of this Bill how far Clause 4, Sub-section (1) (b), applies to a case which I shall state as briefly as I possibly can. In 1915 a national shell factory was erected in the Tinsley part of Sheffield which adjoins Rotherham. The highway adjoining this factory belonged to the Sheffield Corporation, but the tramways laid in this highway belonged to Rotherham. The firm who erected this factory for the Ministry of Munitions desired
to lay a railway siding across the Corporation's tramway, which was strongly objected to by the Corporation of Rotherham. Representations, however, were made by the Government on the matter, whereby the crossing was to be made only for the period of the War, while the factory was in the possession and control of the Ministry of Munitions for war purposes. This Agreement was signed by Sir Reginald Brade on behalf of the Minister of War.
Notwithstanding this, and representations that were made to the Government, they insisted on the terms referred to in Section 6 of the Defence of the Realm (Acquisition of Land) Act, 1916—and with which I will not trouble the right hon. Gentleman—which entirely overrode their agreement. The Ministry of Munitions have now sold the factory, and approached the corporation for their consent to this level crossing remaining after the period mentioned in Section 6 of the Act. To this the corporation have agreed on payment of £500 compensation which was approved of by the Ministry of Munitions with the sanction of the Treasury. This is over a year ago, and I now find that nothing that can be done by the Corporation of Rotherham will move the Treasury to complete this agreement. It is the opinion of the Corporation of Rotherham that they are holding up the completion of the agreement pending the passing of the Bill now before the House, and it is quite obvious to my mind that if the provision mentioned in Sub-section (2) is passed into law, they will then insist on the matter going to the Ministry of Transport with the hope that that authority will for the second time enable the Government to avoid the honourable arrangement they have made.
I should like to hear from the right hon. Gentleman how far the Government will tear up the honourable agreement made between the Corporation of Rotherham and Sir Reginald Brade on behalf of the Minister for War. I should like to hear whether the particular paragraph to which I have referred will put the Corporation of Rotherham into this position or not, because if it does, it will be my business to oppose this Bill to the utmost of my power.

Sir F. BANBURY: I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the War Office whether there is any particular
reason why this Bill has been introduced? It has been stated to me that—it may possibly be for quite a good reason— the real reason for this Bill is connected with the sale of Richborough, that it will be difficult to come to the arrangements which are about to be come to, or hoped will be come to, in regard to the sale of Richborough if this Bill is not introduced. Whether that is so or not I really do not know. It may be a perfectly legitimate reason, and it may be that the original Act does require certain alterations, but it seems to me there are certain objections to this Bill, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to meet the points I am going to raise when we get into Committee. There is still uncertainty in the original Act as to who may or may not go before the Railway Commission, who may or may not amongst the actual owners in such and such circumstances claim the right of pre-emption. I would therefore suggest that any owner of requisitioned land to be sold by a third party should have the right of appeal to the Railway Commission, which, I think, is a perfectly fair proposal. Where a man has given over his property, or has had it requisitioned during the War for the purposes of the State, the least that can be said or done is to allow him the right of pre-emption when that property is to be sold. We all remember the little discussion which took place some time ago between, I think, the Ministry of Munitions and Lord Rosebery. It is with the idea that some such arrangement as there indicated should be put into the Bill that I have risen this afternoon. I have here an Amendment which, if not an Amendment of my own— because it is such a very technical Bill that it is almost impossible for the layman to put forward an Amendment—I propose to put down, and which more or less deals with the question, and which has been handed to me by legal people. I trust the Financial Secretary will accept it, when we get to the Committee stage, or, if I am not on the Committee, when we get to the Report stage. Under the Act of 1916 compensation is, I think, given to the owners on a basis which is manifestly unfair. Agricultural property has increased very much in value, and I hope the Financial Secretary will consider whether or not some Amendment of that particular part of the Act of 1916 ought not to be introduced. I have nothing
further to say upon those matters. Some of them are questions of serious moment to the people concerned, but because they happen to be few in number I hop© the Government will not disregard their just claims.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am surprised to find the Financial Secretary to the War Office in charge of this Bill, and I was rather puzzled when he told us that it would take a great deal of time to understand this Bill, as it was a lawyer's job, and I also wondered why a Law Officer was not in charge of it. I begin to see the reason now. This is a Bill which concerns the War Office. I do not propose to examine more than one particular point in Clause 7. Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that the War Office still has a number of rifle ranges, that they have not yet decided how many they will want, and that they must have powers under the Defence of the Realm Regulations to keep the public away from those ranges? That is a most astounding declaration. Here we are, two years after the Armistice, the territorial and military policy of the Government has been declared, and to say now that the War Office has not made up its mind what rifle ranges are required is to me simply astounding.
I do not agree with the statement which has been made that we had not enough rifle ranges before the War. That is all the more reason why the Government should have made up their mind instead of coming now asking for these indefinite powers. I think we can save the country a little money by striking out Clause 7. If the Government is keeping on all these ranges "on spec.," then they are wasting a lot of money. I see there are not only rifle and artillery ranges, but also aerial ranges. Everyone must know that the danger around such a range is colossal, and the restrictions on the public in the neighbourhood of any ordinary inland aerial range must be very great indeed. If the Government are going to set up aerial ranges in inland districts they are going to be very dangerous, and the danger zone is going to be greatly increased. On this matter the House ought not to give the Government carte blanche, but force them to set up their aerial ranges on waste spaces, and there are plenty round the coast, such as the vast flats in the estuaries of the Thames and the Wash, where, from the
point of view of economy and cheapness and the safety of the public, they are very good indeed. I want to ask if the Government are going to take over ranges at such places as Shoeburyness and Morecèmbe Bay? I am not disposed to give the Government any powers to keep on rifle ranges simply because they have not yet made up their minds how many they will want.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: I congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary to the War Office on the facility with which he has explained what, to an ordinary layman, is an almost unintelligible Bill. I should like to refer to Clause 3, Subsection 1 (a). I am not quite sure whether I followed the right hon. Gentleman correctly in his explanation, but it does seem to me to be giving a very wide power to the Government Department. I understand the War Office has certain lands upon which there are certain derelict buildings, and it finds it difficult to sell that land and the buildings upon it. If the Government require an acre or two acres in the vicinity of such land they would be empowered by this Subsection to acquire compulsorily those additional acres in order to realise to the best advantage. That is a pretty dangerous power, and I suggest that, unless the acre or two acres referred to are in the hands of a willing seller, it would be better to cut your loss and sell for what you can get rather than give the Government Departments power to buy land all round. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider that point, and I am prepared to move in Committee that that Sub-section be omitted.

Lieut.-Colonel ROYDS: Clause 3 not only gives power to acquire additional land to that which has been already bought, but it gives the Government power to acquire and sell land which they have not bought on which they may have built factories, hutments, etc. Although they have been in the habit of offering land for sale without having bought it yet it was found that they could not do that, and now they are taking power to buy for the purpose of at once selling again with the buildings on the land. That power deprives the owner of his rights of pre emption. If the Government buy land under the existing Acquisition of Land Bill the owner has a
right of pre-emption, but under this Clause he has not that right, because you are giving power to buy the land in order to sell it to somebody else. That is the ease which my right hon. Friend quoted of Lord Rosebery's estate where they offered his property for sale without having bought it, and now you are legalising that action.

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I will endeavour to answer the observations which hon. Members have made. The hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Hood) referred to the occupation of part of Wimbledon Common for the purpose of housing troops. The Bill before the House does not enlarge the powers which now exist under the principal Act, and commons are not purchaseable. Therefore the hon. Member may rest assured that there is no intention to permanently occupy Wimbledon Common. I believe there are other commons in the country where similar apprehensions exist, but they are quite unfounded. The hon. Member for Rotherham (Major Kelley) spoke about a level-crossing in the borough of Rotherham, which I think he said crossed a tramway line, and he said that an arrangement had been come to permitting the level-crossing to continue on payment of £500. The hon. Member suggested that there was some delay in settling this matter owing to the fact that this Bill was coming on. All I can say is that I know nothing of the matter personally, and my advisers know nothing about it, but I think the hon. Member must be mistaken as to the reason for any delay in the payment of the £500.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) spoke about this right of pre-emption, and asked how far it was intended the restrictions should go. The right of preemption extends to the owner and his successors in title, that is to say, his heirs, or the persons to whom he has sold the land. The Bill limits that right of preemption to those persons who own or did own the land, or who may have purchased the right of pre-emption from, the previous owner, but the Bill provides that this right shall not extend to other persons who are only interested in the land as neighbours. Under the Act of 1906, with regard to the compensation being fixed on the basis of the 1914, this Bill does not touch that point at all. The
hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) spoke of the Government having a large number of rifle ranges and keeping them up. The hon. and gallant Member is mistaken in that. A very considerable number of rifle ranges have been given up, but there is still some uncertainty as to what the permanent requirements are, and it is intended when the uncertainty is cleared up to acquire the rights over those rifle ranges under the Military Lands Acts, and it is not intended to do anything arbitrary. It is desired to have a little longer time to make decisions as to what ranges it is best to retain.
One hon. Member spoke of parts where ranges were none too plentiful before the War, and I know the same thing has occurred in my own district in the North. It would be undesirable to give up the making of the bye-laws now, especially as it is definitely provided that we retain the land for two years. Why we should not continue the bye-laws for two years I cannot understand, because otherwise we should be in a very absurd position. With regard to aerial ranges, that is a matter which deserves very serious attention, and it will be considered. I am glad the hon. and gallant Gentleman drew my attention to that point, and it will receive all the attention which it certainly deserves. The hon. Member for Kincardineshire (Lieut.-Colonel A. Murray) spoke of the buying of land around a factory for the purpose of reselling the factory together with the adjoining land. My hon. and gallant Friend need not have much apprehension on that point, because this Bill does not touch it, and the rights of buying the land are already contained in the principal Act, and no extension of those powers is contemplated in this Bill.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Then I do not follow the reason for the introduction of this Sub-section if it does not extend those powers.

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: The provision inserted is intended to clear up a doubt as to whether you can buy for the purpose of resale. It does not extend the powers, and it is only to clear u a doubt which exists in the minds of buyers who are unwilling to purchase unless the title is made clear. There is no intention of extending the powers of purchase, because they exist under the original Act. I think
I have now dealt with all the points, and I ask the House to give a Second Reading to this Bill.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

Orders of the Day — GOLD AND SILVER (EXPORT, CONTROL, &c.) BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Sir E. CORNWALL in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Extension of 42 and 43 Vict, c. 21 s. 8, to gold and silver coin and bullion.)

(1) Section eight of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1879 (which enables the exportation of certain articles to be prohibited), shall have effect as if, in addition to the articles therein mentioned, there were included the following articles, that is to say, gold or silver coin and gold or silver bullion.

(2) If any person acts in contravention of or fails to comply with any condition attached to a licence authorising the exportation of any goods prohibited to be exported by virtue of this Section, he shall for each offence, without prejudice to any other liability, be liable to a Customs penalty of one hundred pounds.

(3) In this Act the expression "gold or silver bullion" includes gold or silver partly manufactured and any mixture or alloy containing gold or silver.

Mr. SAMUEL SAMUEL: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "or silver" ["gold or silver coin"].
This Amendment refers to the silver coin. I am not so strong on this point as I am in regard to leaving out the same words relating to silver bullion. It may be quite necessary to restrict the exportation of silver coin, in view of the enormous advance in the price of the metal, and because the market might be depleted of small coinage. In the first place, if the Government pay the market price they can get as much silver as they require, and secondly, the Government are about to issue a new coinage which will replace the old one. I do not know if I am in Order in arguing my two Amendments together, but there is a very real danger in the Government having power by an Order in Council to pro-
hibit the exportation of silver except under licence. As I pointed out on the Second Reading of this Bill, the conditions which exist in the Far East are different. Silver plays a very large part in the trade and commerce of China, and often silver is necessary there to secure contracts.
8.0 P.M.
I hope this evening that the Secretary to the Treasury will be able to explain the attitude of the Government in connection with the monopoly that they have granted to a consortium of bankers to operate all Government business in China. I want to point out the enormous disadvantage that this country will be at if the Government persist in the prohibition, except under licence, of silver under this Bill. The British Government have virtually licensed this syndicate as a monopoly for advances in China and for securing the principal contracts for anything that the Governments of China may be interested in, railways, tramways, electrical works, or waterworks—anything the Governments of China are interested in this British syndicate is to have the monopoly of financing, and the Chinese syndicate is to have the monopoly of securing the contracts, and are to get a commission on all the contracts secured. It will be necessary for this syndicate to ship silver, as it always is necessary in getting contracts in China for the people to supply silver, which they have to get from the banks. This syndicate, which has been established by the Government, will have behind it the whole power of diplomacy of the British Empire, you might say. They have made an arrangement with an American financial syndicate, who are to have a share in the finance; they have made an arrangement with a Japanese financial syndicate, who are to have a share in the finance; and with a French finance syndicate; but with none of those Governments, I believe, has His Majesty's Government any agreement that they shall prohibit the export of silver to China excepting through this consortium, and it comes to this, that in the event of contracts being secured, with the assistance of the British Government, such contracts are to be offered, not to British manufacturers, but to the manufacturers of the countries in this consortium. At the same time every British merchant in China is to be prohibited
absolutely—boycotted by the British Government—from taking any Government contracts because the Government here—the Treasury—will not allow anybody outside this consortium to issue loans or raise money in this country.
We had the same thing before the War with the Germans. They were able to secure a large number of contracts from the Chinese Government which were lost to us because the British Government refused to help our merchants. Every American merchant will be able to go out to China and to secure contracts outside of this consortium, while they will get the full benefit of any contracts taken by this consortium. You will have the Japanese going out and getting the support of the Japanese Minister in China to contracts, whilst they are not debarred from their share in the contracts of the consortium. You will drive British merchants who in the past have been working for British industry to associate themselves with American, Japanese and French industrials in order to take the orders of those countries, which are not so imbecile as to say that they are going to support one man, and one man only, in the whole of China. If, therefore, silver is included in this Bill the consequence will be that you will have the silver going from our competitors, and you will debar the British merchant, depriving him of any incentive to secure contracts with the Chinese Governments. During the War we saw a large number of American houses start in China, thinking they were going to do the whole business of China because we were occupied, had prohibitions and could not get licences for the shipment of goods to China. The result of that invasion there has been that the majority of those houses have "gone burst,' while the old solid British houses still remain, and it is not at all surprising that the Americans to-day are joining this British group of financiers with a view to eliminating the British merchant with his energy and perseverance. The Americans are only too pleased to come in under the protection of the British Government to secure all the business they can in China and to prevent those men who have created the business in China reaping any benefit from their long work.

Mr. BIGLAND: I think perhaps the ruling from the Chair will be that we may discuss together the two Amendments
affecting the same line and dealing with silver coin and silver bullion, as they cannot very well be discussed separately.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir E. Cornwall): Certainly.

Mr. BIGLAND: With regard to the Government's desire to control the export of silver coin, it appears to me they are unnecessarily nervous about this, for no possible reason. The price of silver is 44d. per ounce, and the value of the silver in our half-crowns and shillings is equal to 64d. per ounce. Nobody is going to ship silver coins out of this country for the value of the silver that is in them, because to that extent they would be losing money. We did see silver go above 64d., and if we see silver go above 64d. again, then the Government have power to issue coin in which the silver constituent shall be worth only 22d., so that the Mint and the Treasury will make a profit whatever happens. If the price remains below 64d., they continue to give us good, sound silver currency, but if the price should advance above 64d. they will have power, given to them under the Act which was passed by this House, to issue silver coin in this country as token coin, and the silver constituents of that shall only be worth 22d. to the ounce. That being so, the Government have no case whatever with regard to silver coin, although it might be a matter of convenience to have it in- the Bill. With regard to silver bullion, my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Samuel) has made out a very strong case indeed why control in the matter of bullion would really be detrimental to the trade of the country, and to the ability of merchants to quote for business offered to them in the East with the knowledge before they go for a licence that they will be able to buy silver and ship it from this country. The Government have no claim whatever to interfere with merchants' rights with regard to this export of silver bullion, and I trust the feeling of the House will be such that the Government will be compelled to take cognisance of the position of the merchant and the business man, who says that he will not put himself into the position in which he may be refused a licence to export silver after he has taken a contract. As we have already heard, export is more or less of a monopoly, in the hands of a clique, and I am sure everyone in the House would
resent the idea that, knowingly or unknowingly, the Treasury are combining in a matter of this sort with a monopoly who may act to the detriment of the individual merchant. I have great pleasure in supporting this Amendment.

Mr. STEWART: I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill if it is necessary to have the word "silver" in it at all. I can quite understand the Government taking the necessary powers to prevent the export of gold, but silver has no status in this country, and it is boycotted by the British Empire in every part of our Dominions. The question of the coinage, which the last speaker has mentioned, opens up an interesting point. We have not seen anything of these new nickel coins. Are the nickel coins included in this Bill? I do not think the Government need have any apprehension about our silver coins being exported. I presume that we shall not have two sorts of silver coins running concurrently, because, if so, I think an awkward position will arise. The old coinage will run the risk of being hoarded, and there will be the risk of having one sort of coinage at a premium and the other at a discount. With regard to bullion, this Bill protects all the silver in the country at the present moment, but the people who have to deal with silver will have an apprehensive feeling in their mind that if they get silver into this country it may be impounded, and the great institutions that are responsible for supplying the East, both China and India, with silver will refrain from bringing it to this country, and will supply their wants from San Francisco or some other Pacific coast port, and a very large trade, which has been going on in this country for a great many years, may be seriously endangered. If the Government have the intention of keeping silver in the Bill, I hope they will at least accept the Amendment in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) and let us have a time limit—any time that the Treasury may think fit to impose. I think the possibility of the London market ceasing to be the important market for silver that it now is is worthy of the consideration of those in charge of the Bill.

Mr. WISE: I do not think it is fully realised that silver is a commodity in the
same way as gold or any other article, and if you control a commodity like silver it is sure to affect your trade in the East. When this Bill was first presented the rupee rose in price. I do not know whether any secret got out at the time, but I was told by an Eastern banker that information was current in Calcutta about this Bill prior to it coming before the House. In the last few days the rupee has fallen. Now the essence of the rupee is that it should be on a gold basis. On that basis its value to-day would be 2s. 9d., but, owing to its having become associated with silver, it has dropped to Is. 6d. If it is controlled for more than a certain period it will be a detriment to our trade in the East. Take the case of the Hong Kong dollar, which is based on 50 per cent, of silver; control would affect trade from Hong Kong into China. Again, if you have to have control, it should not be beyond a year, and at the end of the period the offer can be renewed. Then if you have licences there will be difficulty in obtaining them; there will be more expense and more bureaucratic control. I hope the Government therefore will consider the advisability of leaving silver out of this Bill.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Baldwin): I regret that I cannot see my way to accept this Amendment. My hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Stewart) minimised what we consider at the moment to be a very real risk. There is a strong demand at present for silver coinage from this country in some parts of the Empire which use that coinage, and we are afraid, and we think we are justified in the fear, that if silver coinage were not included, it would be purchased and sent away, and there would not be sufficient coinage for our own requirements, which, as hon. Members know, at present are very great. The real objection is in regard to bullion. I admit frankly, and I said as much on the Second Reading, that the time for safeguarding bullion, as was done during the War, has passed away. I told the House that I would carefully consider the removal of the ban on bullion at as early a date as possible. I have had an opportunity since the Second Reading of considering this question very carefully, and I will give an undertaking to the Committee that, when this Bill has become law, I shall be prepared to draft a fresh
Order in Council under the Statute to take the place of Orders in Council which were drafted under the War legislation of 1914, and in the new Order in Council I will undertake to leave out all restrictions on silver bullion. Honestly, I do not see any likelihood of these restrictions being resumed for, possibly, an almost indefinite period; but I feel, if I may repeat what I said on the Second Reading, that although silver is far, far less important than gold, it is desirable, in putting these powers on the Statute Book, to deal with emergencies in time of financial stress, that the word "silver" should be included as well as gold. I hope and believe it may be many, many years before it may be necessary to impose any restrictions, but we are living in very uncertain and unsettled times financially.
I would remind the Committee once more that the new powers given under this Bill cannot be put into force until the matter has been fully discussed between the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the time being and the City of London, and when they are in agreement it is always possible to raise a question in this House, so that there is no fear of anything being done under the cloak, or behind people's backs, or that one would be ashamed of in the light of day. I do not know whether the pledge I have given will satisfy the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Samuel Samuel), but it certainly does make impossible that very dark picture which he spent several minutes in painting at the opening of this Debate. We propose, as far as silver is concerned, to retain only the powers which this Bill will give us as regards coinage, and that, we believe, is all that is necessary for the present.

Sir D. MACLEAN: My right hon. Friend has, I think, admitted the whole case of those who are responsible for this Amendment, because, with his usual frankness, he states that he does not see any immediate necessity for the exercise of these powers under this Bill with regard to silver. Not only did he say that, but he added that he did not see any likelihood of the exercise of those powers in the dim future. He told us by way of supporting his contention in favour of having these powers that we live in very uncertain times. Certainly we do, and if there is one think that business requires above all other things, it is all the power that latitude and certainty can give it. Nothing so much assists a business man
as to know, with regard to any commodity in which he deals, that he is free from Government control unless an Act of Parliament is passed to deal with it. As I have said before, so long as my right hon. Friend is where he is, I feel quite confident that these powers will not be arbitrarily exercised; but that is not the way to legislate. We have to legislate, not upon the personnel of the Ministry, but upon the broad merits of the schemes which they submit. As the Mover and Seconder of this Amendment and all the other speakers upon it have said, the case for the omission of silver from this Clause is really not contested. I cannot understand why my right hon. Friend, with his great fairness and frankness, does not say that what is really meant is that the power is needed for gold. I admit that, but it is business legislation to ask only for those powers that you want, and not for powers which you think you may want years hence. That is the War habit which has got hold of us again. Those hon. Members who have spoken on this matter, with the exception of myself, are every one of them men who thoroughly understand it. It is a matter which either has been or is a part of their daily life. I cannot pretend to be an expert on silver, but I do claim to have some knowledge of business, and I say that the volume of testimony and argument which has come from those hon. Members, who are actuated by no motive other than that of the public interest, is a very serious thing for my right hon. Friend to set aside. I suppose it is too late to ask him to change his mind on the matter, but not a shred of evidence has been adduced to the Committee for the inclusion of silver in the Bill. I do not know whether my hon. Friends are going to a Division, but, if they do, I shall feel bound to support them, although we know what the result will be. I hope, however, that the question will be raised again on the Report stage, and that a larger number of hon. Members will be present to hear the merits of the matter discussed as efficiently as they have been discussed to-day.

Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNER: I think we ought to have a little more explanation of the prohibition of the export of coin. The financiers of the nation are very desirous of making every addition to their income that they possibly can, and as it is in the power of the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer, through the Mint to sell for 5s. silver which now costs 3s. 8d., I cannot understand the principle which does not encourage the Mint to buy all the bullion that it can and to sell it to those customers of whom the right hon. Gentleman tells us he has so many. I remember that in earlier days it was a very sore point with exporters that they had to go to the Mint and pay 5s. for what at that time was costing only 2s. 2d. or 2s. 6d. For the sake of the nation I do beg the Chancellor of the Exchequer to encourage the buying of silver at its lower price, and, through the Mint, to add to our financial resources, which are in a state of such sore need.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALL: When my hon. Friend brings something before the House he usually has a good following, but I think he will admit that in this case, both on the Second Reading and on this stage, we have not heard anyone speaking in favour of his proposal. Like other speakers, I cannot understand why either bullion or coin should not be exported. The trade has gone on from time immemorial. I suppose there must be some reason, but no one appears to know it, and, with all deference to my right hon. Friend, he has not explained it. He has said that, after this Bill has been safely piloted through its various stages, he will undertake that there shall be an Order in Council. I do not like Orders in Council; we never know where they start or where they finish. It is the Bill that we want to see. If there is going to be afterwards an Order in Council, why should not the Bill itself be altered, so as to give the merchants the opportunity of exporting the silver either as bullion or as coin? Why has there been a shortage of coinage? It was because the price of silver was as high as 80d. or 90d. an ounce. It is now 44d., which puts a totally different complexion on the matter. There cannot possibly be any advantage now in exporting coin, because there is not the value in the coin itself, and I should like to press my right hon. Friend to say here and now whether there is any specific reason that he knows of for placing this embargo upon the exportation of coin. This is a very important question, and I hope my hon. Friends will divide upon it, although I suppose that the Government will turn the Whips on, and
the Government will be "Aye" or "No" as the case may be to a great many hon. Members who have heard nothing about the matter, and know nothing about the matter, with the exception of a few who have spoken against the measure. I think that my right hon. Friend, with his usual generosity and courtesy, might have given us some idea of the reason. If there be

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley): The next Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Samuel Samuel) and the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Bigland), to leave out the second "or silver," deals with the same

any reason, let us know it; perhaps it may alter our opinions. With the information before me, if my hon. Friends divide, I shall support them.

Question put, "That the words 'or silver ' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 105; Noes, 53.

Division No. 383]
AYES.
[8.35 p.m.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C.
Frece, Sir Walter de
Middlebrook, Sir William


Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Moles, Thomas


Bagley, Captain E. Ashton
Gardiner, James
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred M.


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Murray, C. D. (EdinDurgh)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Goff, Sir R. Park
Neal, Arthur


Barnston, Major Harry
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Newman Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Barrand, A. R.
Gregory, Holman
Parker, James


Barton, Sir William (Oldham)
Guest, Major O. (Leic, Loughboro')
Parry. Lieut-Colonel Thomas Henry


Betterton, Henry B.
Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike


Blair, Reginald
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Perring, William George


Blane, T. A.
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Borwick, Major G. O.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles


Breese, Major Charles E.
Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Pollock, Sir Ernest M.


Briggs, Harold
Hilder, Lieut-Colonel Frank
Prescott, Major W. M.


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Hills, Major John Waller
Ratcliffe, Henry Butler


Casey. T. W.
Hood, Joseph
Rees, Capt. J. Tudon(Barnstaple)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A.(Birm.,W.)
Hope, H. (Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn'n, W.)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey Farnnam)


Churchman, Sir Arthur
Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hopkins, John W. W.
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)


Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Home, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)
Shortt Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Collins, Sir G. P. (Greenock)
Home, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)
Smith, Sir Allan M Croydon, South)


Colvin, Brig-General Richard Beale
Howard, Major S. G.
Sprot, Colonel Sir- Alexander


Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
Jephcott, A. R.
Stanley, Major Hen. G. (Preston)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Jesson, C.
Steel, Steel, Major S. Strang


Dean, Lieut.-Commander P. T.
Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Dixon, Captain Herbert
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Lianelly)
Sutherland, Sir William


Donald, Thompson
Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George
Taylor, J.


Doyle, N. Grattan
Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)
Whitla, Sir William


Edge, Captain William
Lister, Sir R. Ashton
Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Lloyd-Greame, Major Sir P.
Wills. Lieut-Colonel Sir; Gilbert


Edwards Hugh (Glam., Neath)
Lorden, John William
Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Elliott, Lt-Col. Sir G. (Islington, W.)
Lyle-Samuel, Alexander
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.
Lynn, R. J.



Flannery, Sir James Fortescue
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Martin, Captain A. E.
Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Dudley Ward.




NOES.


Atkey, A. R.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborougm


Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-
Knights, Capt. H. N. (C-berwell, N.)
Stewart, Gershom


Barnett, Major R. W.
Lloyd, George Butler
Sugden, W. H.


Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)
Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian)
Swan, J. E.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Macquisten, F. A.
Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)


Bramsdon, Sir Thomas
MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, west)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Manville, Edward
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Cairns, John
Mitchell, William Lane
Waterson, A. E.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.
Wignall, James


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward


Glanville, Harold James
Newbould, Alfred Ernest
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Grundy, T. W.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Hall, Lieut. Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wintringham, T.


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Robertson, John
Wise, Frederick


Hartshorn, Vernon
Royce, William Stapleton



Hinds, John
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Irving, Dan
Sexton, James
Mr. Samuel Samuel and Mr.


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)
Bigland.

point which the Committee has just decided.

Mr. BIGLAND: I understood on the ruling of Sir Edwin Cornwall, that the two would go together. We were fighting on the two.

Major-General Sir N. MOORE: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert the words
Provided, however, that any gold or silver coin and gold or silver bullion which may be imported after the passing of this Act may be re-exported at any time, whether in the same or in any re-melted form or converted form, and a transferable licence to that effect shall be granted at the time of importation.
I do not know whether this Amendment will meet with the same fate as the last, but I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman who represents the Treasury will indicate to us that he is prepared to make an Order in Council instead of proceeding with legislation under this Bill. The Government are endeavouring to regulate or prohibit the export of gold or silver. I am satisfied that while they may regulate the gold that is in this country at the present time, this Bill will have the effect that no new gold will be imported into this country. At the present time there is a regulation or understanding between the gold producers and the Department concerned here under which a licence is given for gold, provided that it is imported into this country and not re-exported before a period of five weeks. We realise that the production of gold has fallen very considerably. The production of gold within the British Empire has fallen from something like £58,000,000 to £51,000,000. If we are to secure our share of it, it is absolutely essential that some undertaking should be given that, with respect to all new gold imported into this country, a licence should be granted enabling it to be re-exported. There can be no harm in that. It means that if we do not get these licences to re-export, the new gold will not come here. It will go, as in the past, to China, America, and India. By such a provision as the one now proposed we shall get the gold here, and then it can take its chance of being re-exported. We want to re-establish London as the chief exchange so far as gold is concerned. I am speaking for people who are actually producing the gold. I speak for and represent the South African point of view, as well as the Australian producers. Therefore, I think the Government ought to pay some attention to the people who know something about the subject. Since the Second Reading debate I have spoken to
several bankers, very important people, and they assure me that the provision which I have now proposed should be inserted in the Bill, and they hope the Government will give favourable consideration to it.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I have great pleasure in supporting this Amendment. I do not want to say anything about the general purpose of the Bill except to ask hon. Members on the Labour Benches to realise that, though this is a temporary measure, there is a tendency for these things to become permanent and to create a very dangerous monopoly. This Clause will mitigate some of the worst effects of the Bill. It is exactly the same principle as we are embodying in the Housing Bill, which is not to apply to houses built after a certain date, because it is commonsense that, while you may apply this restrictive legislation to buildings which are already on the ground and cannot run away, there is no use in applying it to houses which are not built, because the result would be that they would not be built at all. The very same point applies here. Having got a certain amount of gold in the country, it may be necessary for some purpose, which is difficult to understand and which I have not seen explained, to put the right to license into the hands of the Inland Revenue, so that a few gentlemen down in the City, who think they know better than the community the natural economic laws and how gold and silver should ebb and flow for the purpose of trade; but if you put that monopolistic power into their hands, you need not think that gold will come into the country.
Gold is the most fluid of all commodities. It is one of those things, like credit, which can take wings and fly, and it will not come here if it going to be subject to the license of a number of highly respectable financiers who deal in gold and silver in the city of London. Speaking for large producers in South Africa, I know that they are very much alarmed about it. Throughout the War they sent their gold, very large supplies, faithfully home to this country and sold it at a less price than they could have got in other countries largely from patriotic motives and also because they had been also in the habit of doing so. They might have made more by taking it out to China or India, and there was the threat held out at the time that an
effort would be made not to allow gold to reach its true value and to continue it after peace, and it was when the South African Government took its courage in its hands and refused to allow this restrictive monopoly that gold was allowed to reach its true price, but if these producers are going to be asked to put their head into the trap to bring their gold here and yet not to be allowed to take it out, they will be in the position of the Exciseman who went into the smugglers' cave and was asked, "Did anybody see you coming in?" and when he said "No," he was told, "Well, nobody will see you going out." If they are to be allowed to bring gold in and not to take it out, it will not come in.
Once a monopoly of this kind starts it is very difficult to get rid of, and when the dire effects of the gold produced in our Dependencies going to other parts of the British Empire and the world will be seen with disastrous results to our trade you will still have the gentlemen who have the power of issuing licences still at their work and assuring the officials of the Treasury and the Excise that everything is all right, and so it will be for them, but it will not be for the trade, industry and credit of the country. Therefore, I advise you to put a stop to the action of the clutching hand which is insisting not only on grasping control of the bullion in this country, but wants to make a dive at the stuff which is not yet crushed out of the rock, if ever by any chance people are foolish enough to bring it here. I want to see gold streaming into this country. The more that comes the better for our credit and foreign trade and rate of exchange, and the more the cost of living will be reduced, but if you allow this monopoly to go further than it has gone, if you allow it to go so far as to get hold of the gold which has not yet come in, you will inflict one of the most serious blows that are possible on the credit and finance of the country.

Mr. BALDWIN: It might be for the convenience of the Committee if I interpose at this moment, because, while I am unable to accept the Amendment as it stands, I have done my best to meet the case which has been raised by the hon. Members, and I hope that I shall be able to satisfy them with the words which I propose. I cannot accept the Amendment because the words as drafted make the
proposal far too wide. Referring particularly to the case of South Africa, to which my hon. Friend (Mr. Macquisten) has alluded, it is within his knowledge that there is an agreement at present working with regard to South African gold. We have been approached by those interested in the subject, and we are quite agreeable to give a statutory form to the continuation of that agreement, and to do it in such a way as to give us power to make and give effect to similar agreements for the gold producers in other Colonies and Dominions. The Amendment which I shall propose is to insert at the end of Sub-section (2) the words,
Gold produced in any part of His Majesty's Dominions and imported into the United Kingdom under any arrangement approved by the Treasury may, notwithstanding anything in this Section, be exported in accordance with the terms of that arrangement.
I saw the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Thursday evening, when this proposal was first drafted, and obtained his approval. Otherwise it would have appeared on the Paper on Friday. As this may be regarded as short notice, I will move that Amendment on the Report stage. It is an Amendment which the Government have put down in view of the wider Amendment now before the Committee.

Sir D. MACLEAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman give a general idea of the nature of some of the arrangements to which he has alluded?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: They vary and may be altered.

Sir D. MACLEAN: What is the general nature of the arrangement between the Government and the Dominions or other parts of the Empire where the gold is produced?

Sir N. MOORE: I believe there is some arrangement for gold to be introduced into this country under licence, and to be re-exported provided the re-export takes place within five weeks of its arrival in this country. If it is to be an arrangement of that kind it is not likely to be very much good. I think it will be much preferable for the Government's proposal to be brought up on the Report stage. It would not meet my views at all if it is to be merely an arrangement of the kind I have indicated, and to apply only to a period of five weeks.

Mr. BALDWIN: If the hon. Member is willing to withdraw his Amendment, I could put mine on the Paper, and hon. Members could then examine it.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: As far as I can see, the Treasury Amendment still leaves an elastic power in the hands of the Treasury. If the Treasury have been "got the better of" sufficiently to introduce this Bill it will be "got the better of" to make some arrangement that will do some harm. I cannot agree that this Amendment of my hon. and gallant Friend drives a coach and four through the Bill. It seems to exclude just new gold. Why there should be any objection to that I cannot understand, if there is a genuine desire on the part of the Treasury to get gold into the country.

9.0 P.M.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I am certain that the Committee would be very glad to do anything which would facilitate the Government in the passage of a very difficult, very technical, and very important measure. There is a limited number of experts in the House to discuss the Bill, but it is a Bill of very general importance and interest, going to the very vitals of the country's business. If the Amendment of the Government goes on the Paper, what will be the effect? It will come on on the Report stage, and we know what that is. The Report stage provides nothing like as easy or as efficient a way of handling an intricate measure. Hon. Members can speak only once. What the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has suggested is certainly a mitigation of the stringency of the Bill as it stands. But if it is true, as I am sure it is, that gold exported shall not remain in this country longer than five weeks, the proposal seems to me to be futile. I would suggest to the Government that they report progress, that the suggested Amendment be put on the Paper, and that thus we shall have an opportunity of discussing it with knowledge. The Government are not pushed for time. They are quite willing to give days for discussion of all sorts of subjects. The House will undoubtedly be sitting right up to Christmas, because of what is happening in another place. An Adjournment might also settle an Amendment now standing in my name. Give us
a little more time to consider these matters in Committee, and when the Report stage is reached it will be almost a formal stage.

The CHAIRMAN: I ought to say that there is no Report stage of a Bill which is taken in Committee on the Floor of the House, unless the Bill is amended. We ought to bear that in mind. I do not know whether the Government propose to accept any Amendment on the Paper?

Mr. BALDWIN: There will be a new Clause of some kind. I shall have to move one in Committee, and there will be an alteration in the Bill.

Mr. BIGLAND: The need of the Amendment would be abolished altogether if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would say, "We will pay the market price of the world for gold." We are in the most extraordinary position in England that we are buyers of gold at 77s. 10½d., while in New York the price is 117s. 4d. Why should the Treasury refuse to pay the world price for gold? If the world price is paid here, every part of the Dominions and all the world would ship gold to London. The whole trouble is caused by the fact that the Government are trying to buy something worth £5 17s. for £3 17s. 10½d.

Mr. BALDWIN: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
It would be for the convenience of the Committee to report Progress, for two reasons. First of all, I think it would be a very good thing for the Members of the House to have the opportunity of seeing the words of my Amendment and, secondly, there is an important point raised in an Amendment by my right hon. Friend the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean). I had approached him earlier in the evening and said that I was considering the point,. but would be unable to give my reply until the Report stage. If the Motion to report Progress is agreed to, we shall be able to deal with that point also, as well as my Amendment.

Question put, and agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.

As amended, considered.

CLAUSE.— (Power to make Temporary Advances from Local Loans Fund to Local Authorities for Housing Purposes.)

(2) Interest on advances under this Section shall be payable at such a rate as the Treasury may from time to time fix or, if the rate applicable to any advance is less than the bank rate for the time being in force, at the bank rate.

Mr. BALDWIN: I beg to move, in Sub section (2), to leave out the words "the rate applicable to" and to insert instead thereof the words, "so long as the rate which shall be fixed by the Treasury in the case of."

The Amendment ensures that in no case shall the advance be made at less than the bank rate which gives effect to what was desired by the right hon. Baronet, the Member for the City (Sir F. Banbury).

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Bill be now read the Third time" put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — HULME TRUST ESTATES (NON-EDUCATIONAL) CHARITY BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

Clauses 1 (Confirmation of Scheme) and 2 (Short Title) agreed to.

SCHEDULE.—(Scheme for the application or management of the Hulme Trust Estates (Non-Educational).)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Schedule stand part of the Bill."

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask the hon. Gentleman who represents the Charity Commissioners to give us an explanation of the Schedule which contains the gist of the Bill. I would also ask why is it necessary to take this Bill, which may be very important, on the Floor of the House instead of sending it upstairs, when the Government assure us
that they have not time to bring in measures which hon. Members feel strongly ought to have been brought in long since.

Sir GODFREY COLLINS: In reply to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, I may say that the Schedule is the model trust in Bills of the kind. As to the other point, it has been the custom in the past for Bills initiated by the Charity Commissioners to be taken in this House by general agreement.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — BAPTIST CHAPELS CHARITIES BILL.

Considered in Committee: reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1920–21.

(CLASS 4.)

PUBLIC EDUCATION, IRELAND.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £528,600, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1921, for the Expenses of the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland, including Grants in Aid of the Teachers' Pension Fund, Ireland.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Denis Henry): The sum which the Committee are asked to vote arises owing to the fact that a Viceregal Commission was appointed in 1918 to consider the question of the salaries and pensions of the teachers in Ireland, both male and female, and that Commission reported recommending certain increases of salary. The increases in the first instance were not granted by the Treasury, but the teachers appealed to the Arbitration Board, and in the month of Septem-
ber last the Arbitration Board directed the Treasury to agree on a certain sum with the teachers in the matter of salaries. The result of that agreement involves an increase of £528,600 to the teachers' salaries, and that is the sum for which we ask. I should mention that the increase has been spread over a period of three years, and the third, representing the increase for the first year, amounts to £528,600. The English teachers' salaries have also been increased, but In the case of the Irish increase it is provided to be one-third for each year for three years, and this sum of £528,600 represents the figure arrived at as the result of negotiations between the teachers and the Treasury.

Sir D. MACLEAN: What the Committee is asked to grant to-night is not merely the sum of £528,600, but £1,585,800. That is what we are committed to, although we are only asked to vote a third of that sum now, but it is not conceivable that once the authority for the first third is given, there is any likelihood of the other two-thirds being refused. Am I right in the assumption that when the original Estimate was passed the Department concerned did not know there was likely to be an increase of a further £500,000 This would seem to be the second Supplementary Estimate which has been asked for by the Irish Education Department this year, and I should like to know what is the meaning of this exceptionally bad calculation on the part of the Department, which requires them to come down twice to this Committee for Supplementary grants. Under the Act which was passed some little time ago for obtaining better order in Ireland, and dealing with the retention of grants, is there contained power to hold back these particular grants?

Mr. HENRY: No.

Sir D. MACLEAN: Do I understand that, notwithstanding the disturbed state of Ireland, the education of children is still going on?

Mr. HENRY: Yes.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I am very glad, indeed, to hear that, and I hope that nothing will happen to disturb that. It is some evidence that things are not as bad in Ireland as they are painted, and
if the children go to school, there is some hope for the country. Personally, I do not raise any objection to these additional payments to the Irish teachers, because there is no doubt at all that the teachers on this side of the Channel have just cause to complain of their inadequate remuneration, but the under-payment of teachers in Ireland has been a scandal, which is only now being partially remedied. You cannot get anything like moderately good education out of teachers who are so grossly under-paid. Even in these times of monetary stress, I feel that while some economies might be effected in many directions, and even in the Education Department, I cannot oppose this Supplementary Estimate. It is quite clear from what my right hon. Friend says that this particular Supplementary Estimate is the result of an arbitration which only reported in September last, and therefore this could not have been in actual figures foreseen when the original Estimate was put before us.

Sir F. BANBURY: I think it is quite clear that there have been two bad shots at the amount which would be required for the Estimate for public education in Ireland this year, because, first of all, we had the original Vote, which was £3,358,371, then we had a Supplementary Estimate of £557,290, and now we have the further sum of £528,600, which is the second Supplementary Estimate within 12 months. It is quite possible that this second Estimate may be necessary, but it shows the very bad business habits of the Irish Education Office, that they should not have been able to come to a correct conclusion as to what the actual sum they would require during the year for the purposes of education would be. I remember very well that in the old days it was always considered to be a sign of inefficiency in any public Department which was constantly bringing in Supplementary Estimates. I am not certain, but I should say that it is very rare that a Department brings in two Supplementary Estimates for the same service in any given financial year. My right hon. Friend opposite says he is glad to hear that the children in Ireland are still receiving education. I do not think the education they receive, or which their fathers and relations have received, has so far done them much good.
There might be an exception in the case of hon. Members on these Benches.

Dr. MURRAY: There are 30,000 people in Belfast who are not educated at all.

Sir F. BANBURY: I do not quite follow the interruption of the hon. Gentleman, unless it is that the people who represent Belfast are no good. I do not agree with that. I should have thought, so far as I know them, that they were more or less the pick of Ireland, and that they had taken advantage of the opportunity given them in education. I should certainly say that the majority of the people in Ireland had been taught wrongly, or if they had not been taught wrongly that they were born wrongly. I would prefer to believe that it was not natural sin born within them, but that the education authorities had given them wrong instructions. However that may be, we ought to have some further explanation of this Estimate from the learned Attorney-General. I hope he will tell us why it is necessary to have these two Supplementary Estimates in a given year. I do not wish to introduce extraneous matters, but I do not know whether we shall be in a position next year to discuss Irish education, or whether it will be discussed in a Parliament in Ireland. If it is discussed in this Parliament, I hope we shall get an assurance that the Vote will be introduced after due and careful consideration, and that it will not be necessary to have two Supplementary Estimates.

Mr. LYNN: I think the right hon. Baronet has forgotten that Lewis has recently gone dry, and therefore the hon. Member (Dr. Murray) does not understand how things have been done in Ireland and what things are happening there. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman (Sir D. Maclean) that the teachers of Ireland have been very badly paid. No class of people in the United Kingdom has been worse paid. A good deal of the trouble has been due to the fact that we have had an underpaid staff of teachers in Ireland. When one looks at the salaries paid to them, the wonder really is that they have not been more disloyal. Complaint has been made with regard to the Government not having estimated for this thing. So far as we are concerned, our withers are unwrung, because we tried two years ago to induce
the Government to increase the salaries of these teachers, who are getting a miserable pittance. Hon. Members on the Labour benches will agree that these people have not been paid the trade union rate of wages. If our young people are to be properly educated, it is important that we should have a staff of teachers who are competent, efficient, well paid, and content. I am glad the right hon. Gentleman who represents the Liberal party agrees that this should be done. Speaking for an Irish constituency, I say that the grant is fair, but I would like to have seen it even larger. I wish to ask the Attorney-General why it is that secondary teachers are not being better treated. The Government are to be congratulated on dealing generously with the primary teachers, but they have treated the secondary teachers very shabbily.

Lieut.-Commander WILLIAMS: This is a very considerable sum, which will have to be paid out of the national pocket, and I would like to ask, what proportionate effect is it likely to have on the Irish rates themselves? How far are Irishmen in various parts of the country contributing out of their rates towards education at the present time? I fully agree with what my hon. Friend opposite has said on the subject of education. I congratulate the Attorney-General on this increase for educational purposes in those parts of Ireland which have been very badly neglected in the past as regards education. So far as I understand the Irish Question, it has been one of many troubles that you cannot get the Irish themselves to display sufficient interest to come down here and exert pressure on the Government in order to obtain a proper amount of money for education. The empty bench below me is the best example you can possibly have. Here is money going to be expended in the interests of the Irish people, yet not a single Nationalist Member takes the trouble to come and support the right hon. Gentleman. Under the Home Rule Bill what chance is there of this sum being passed on to the Irish people themselves to pay? I have always been rather vague as to the precise position under the financial Clauses of that Bill. Before we vote this sum of money, we should know whether it is likely to be a permanent charge on the British tax-
payer or whether, in due course, the Irish will be able to take up their own burden and carry it themselves in future.

Lieut.-Colonel ALLEN: I wish to say, on behalf of the teachers of Ireland, how much this action of the Government will be appreciated. It is exactly twenty-eight years ago since anything was done in the way of improving educational facilities in Ireland. In the meantime Scotland and England have advanced by leaps and bounds in that direction. It might surprise the Committee to tell them that if Ireland were to receive her equivalent grant, according to the Goschen ratio, instead of having £500,000, as compared with Scotland, she would be getting nearly £2,000,000. Compared with England, if Ireland got her equivalent grant, instead of £500,000, she would receive nearly £1,000,000. So that the Government is not asking for a Vote which is in any way extravagant as compared with the grants given to England and Scotland. Questions have been asked with reference to the Supplementary Vote to be found in H.C.148. I would like to remind the House that £200,000 of that money was granted out of War bonus and introduced in the House as War bonus. Those who are responsible for education in Ireland saw that the teachers were being starved at the beginning of the year; that their salaries, commencing for women at £64 and for men at £78 a year, could not be lived on, and not until this year did the Irish teachers get any War bonus That was an additional sum that was granted. The remainder was an interim grant in anticipation of the standardisation of salaries, and that is how the H.C.148 Supplementary Grant was passed in this House.
I would like to say how much we on these benches appreciate the remarks which fell from the right hon. Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) with regard to teachers in Ireland. They were thoroughly sympathetic, and I believe he meant every word of them. On 24th February of this year a Bill for Irish Education was introduced into this House. Day after day, when Mr. Speaker put it from the Chair, the Noble Lord who has charge of the business invariably said "To-morrow." It is "To-morrow" still, and it will be for ever "To-morrow" so far as that Education Bill is concerned.
This is the only thing, probably, that we will get from this House by way of an education grant. It is at least something that the teachers know that the House appreciates all that they have been doing, under the most difficult and trying circumstances, in Ireland, and by the passing of this Vote in a unanimous way these teachers in Ireland will appreciate it all the more.
May I say one word to supplement the remarks which fell from my hon. Friend the Member for the Woodvale Division (Mr. Lynn) upon the question of secondary education? Bad as is the position of the primary teachers, the secondary teachers are in a very much worse position. The primary teachers have pensions which are very small at the moment, but the improvement now in the salaries will eventually improve the teachers' pensions. Secondary teachers, after twenty years' teaching, have no pensions, and I am only sorry that we have not got the equivalent grant to which we are entitled as compared with England and Scotland, and then you would not only have to-night the consideration of the improved salaries for primary teachers, but we would also have sufficient money out of that equivalent grant to deal with secondary teachers. In conclusion, may I say how much we on these benches appreciate the action of the Government in dealing with this much vexed question? Teachers appreciate it, I can assure the Committee, more than they can possibly express, and I trust the Vote will pass unanimously.

Mr. TYSON WILSON: The Government are sometimes charged, and rightly charged, with being extravagant, but on this occasion I do not think they can be charged with extravagance. This Vote is only an act of innate justice. I remember in January of this year, when I was over in Ireland with some friends of mine, we met representatives of teachers from different parts of Ireland, and heard the pitiful story of the payment they receive. They said that unless something were done, and done quickly, they would take as many positions in this country as they possibly could, and I believe quite a number of teachers have come over to this country from Ireland to teach in English schools on account of the higher salaries paid here. We have to recognise that, if we want good
teachers in our schools, either in this country or in Ireland, if we wish to attract good teachers, we must pay them a decent salary. So far as we are concerned, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman we shall not offer the least opposition to the passing of this Vote, and I am sure that, while the amount of the increase granted may not be considered adequate, I am quite certain the increase will be fully appreciated by the teachers in Ireland.

Sir W. WHITLA: I am surprised and delighted with the last speaker's remarks. It is quite refreshing to find that he has at length repented. I do not think it would be treating the Committee fairly if we did not disclose the situation in Ireland. England raises from her rates a sum almost equivalent to the grant for primary education. Scotland raises a sum equivalent to something like three-fourths of the grant given by the Treasury. Ireland receives the same amount proportionally, but she, owing to religious difficulties, has not any power to strike a rate. Consequently, all these teachers have been starving. It is a scandal to the nation and to this House. When the last speaker was addressing the House, I could not help remembering that when a Bill was brought in to remedy this state of affairs and to enable us in the North of Ireland to strike a rate, so that the teachers could be paid, it was blocked by the Labour party. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!" and "Yes!"] However, we may rejoice in this Supplementary Estimate, which partially removes a very great scandal and grievance. I do not think that scandal is anything to compare with the scandal of the treatment of the secondary teachers. The position of the secondary teachers is truly appalling. When we recognise that these primary teachers, who have been devoting their whole lives? the teaching, especially of the working classes, and that those who are not in the workhouse are driven to exist on an average pension of something like £40 a year, it is a state of affairs which ought to be remedied. I would beg the Attorney-General to bring in a Supplementary Estimate for the secondary teachers, whose case is even more urgent than that of the primary teachers.

Dr. MURRAY: I need hardly say that I am heartily in sympathy with the giving of
this money to improve the position of the teachers in Ireland; the thing is very much to the point—and certainly in respect to the secondary teachers. My hon. Friend who spoke honoured me with a cryptic reference to the Island of Lewis—the third largest island of Great Britain— having gone dry. In Belfast it appeared to me, when I was there, that there were about ten times as many public-houses as schools. The difference between that place and the Island of Lewis is that on the island there are ten times as many schools as public-houses. I am not at all sure, in respect to Scotland, that there is not a big fallacy underlying this matter, and it is that about which I got up to ask. I agree that more money should be paid to the teachers. But does not Ireland get an advantage in other ways? Should there not be in this matter, when Ireland gets a grant, an equivalent grant given to Scotland, and also, possibly, to England? Certainly, if England were interested in education, for I do not believe in giving money to countries which are not so interested! England never worries about it. If we got an equivalent grant for Scotland the teachers might have it, and so it would help; or it would help to reduce the rates in some of the districts. The fact that there are 30,000 children in Belfast for whom accommodation cannot be found seems to reflect on the energies of the distinguished journalists from Ulster whom I see on the opposite Benches.

Mr. HENRY: Several questions have been put to me. I shall endeavour to answer them. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the City referred to the fact that there had already been a Supplementary Estimate this year. I thought I had pointed out that the sum in the first Supplementary Estimate was for additional war bonus for the teachers to the extent of £191,000, and an interim grant for the year 1919–20 in anticipation of a standardised scale of salaries for £345,000. The present Supplementary Estimate is in respect of the year 1919–20. It only arose in the month of September, the former Estimate having been presented to the House in July.

Sir F. BANBURY: But is this not very much out of order, bringing in in July, 1920, an Estimate for the previous financial year? Ought not that Supplementary Estimate to have been brought in before March of this year?

Mr. HENRY: Well, that is the form in which it has been brought in. The main point I wished to emphasise was that the two Supplementary Estimates were not in respect of the same items.

Sir F. BANBURY: That makes it worse.

Mr. HENRY: The 1919–20 Estimate was in anticipation of the standardised scale of salary.

Sir F. BANBURY: That makes it worse. How do we know that next year we may not have another Supplementary Estimate for this year?

Mr. MOLES: Is not the sum that the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney-General for Ireland has read out the interim grant of the war bonuses related to an award that has only been made lately—that was only settled by arbitration in September last?

Sir F. BANBURY: The hon. Member (Mr. Moles) ought to be on the Front Bench.

Mr. HENRY: There is no double vote —no second vote for the same items. My hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock asked me about the rates. There is no rate raised in Ireland for education. The cost falls upon the State. These charges will have to be borne by the Irish Department, and will fall upon the English taxpayer.

Sir F. BANBURY: Before the Vote is carried, may I call the attention of the Committee to what seems to me to be a very serious position? I do not know about an equivalent grant for Scotland or England, but the extraordinary position is this, that the? money put into the pockets of the ratepayers does not reduce the cost!

Mr. LYNN: That is not our fault.

Sir W. WHITLA: That is the English Parliament.

The CHAIRMAN: That is a matter of legislation which we cannot discuss.

Sir F. BANBURY: I was not discussing it. I was my hon. Friends below me. All I was going to say was that the grievances of Ireland seem to me to be disappearing, because so far as I can make out the whole sum spent on Irish education comes
out of our pockets. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] In the event of Ireland becoming a little more civilised it would not be a bad place to live in.

Question put, and agreed to.

Class 5.

COLONIAL SERVICES.

Motion made, and Question made:
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1921, for sundry Colonial Services, including certain Grants in Aid.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Lieut.-Colonel Amery): It may perhaps be for the convenience of the Committee that I should explain briefly why we are asking for this Supplementary Vote, even though it is only a token Vote. As the Committee will see, there is an estimated additional expenditure in connection with Somali-land of £60,000. The greater part of this, that is, say, about £34,000, is due to the extra cost of the recent Somaliland campaign, mainly in connection with the purchase of certain additional stores and equipment required by the Air Force for that campaign.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I remember the Debate and the lucid statement which the hon. and gallant Member made last Session on this question. Have we not already voted the cost of the expedition against the Mullah?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: I was just explaining that point. The Committee may remember that the operations of the Air Force, which contributed so largely to the astonishing success of that brief and short expedition, were estimated for in this form, namely, that a small detachment of the Air Force was borrowed from Egypt, and the Air Ministry calculated for an expenditure of £50,000 over and above the normal cost of keeping that detachment in Egypt. This amount was for the expenses in Somaliland. Certain extra stores had, however, to be brought from this country, and the amount comes to something over £34,000. Those were essential purchases in connection with what was by far the most economical campaign we ever had, because the total cost amounted only to £100,000, and for that sum we disposed of an enemy who has cost this
country many millions, as well as a very considerable number of gallant lives. I believe and I trust that we have disposed of our enemy finally, and I think this expenditure will enable the whole of that country to be put under British administration. I hope in a few years time we shall have a revenue from that country which will meet the cost of administration.
The remainder of the £60,000 is almost entirely made up of expenses in connection with the Exchange. As hon. Members are no doubt aware, Somaliland is on the rupee basis, and both the expenditure and the deficit is reckoned in Indian rupees. If the Indian Exchange goes up the same grant-in-aid does not go so far. Unfortunately, just after the original Estimate, the India Office came to a certain decision in connection with the rupee which sent it up from 2s. 2d. to something like 2s. lid. for a considerable period, and all the heaviest expenditure in connection with the Somaliland campaign, and the general expenditure of administration, including the purchase of camels and other expenses, had to be made during the early months of the year, when the rupee was standing anywhere between 2s. 4d. and 2s. 11d. If the rupee had stood in January, February, March, and April at the figure at which it stands at present, I do not suppose I should have had to ask for any Supplementary Estimate at all. For reasons which certainly could not be foreseen by the Somaliland Administration or the Colonial Office, the rupee rose very sharply in the early months of the year, and that is practically responsible for the whole of the rest of this £60,000. We have come to the House for a token Vote of £10 only because it has been found possible to make a saving on the next sub-head grant in aid of Uganda of approximately the amount we require.

10.0 P.M.

Sir D. MACLEAN: Those hon. Members who were present just now when we discussed the Bill dealing with the export of gold and silver will now see how very important that measure is, because we immediately come to an Estimate which shows what a very remarkable reflex there is on the Treasury in connection with the movements of silver. I think hon. Members will do well to bear in
mind that these small Bills, such as the one we have just passed, although they are very dry and technical, have a very practical bearing upon other problems which come before the House. With regard to the campaign in Somaliland, we congratulate the Colonial Office upon the brevity, the economy, and the success of that campaign. I only wish to say that I regret the same result has not distinguished the operations in Mesopotamia, because if they had adopted something like the same methods of dealing with that difficulty by the Air Force, I think we should have saved scores of pounds and possibly hundreds of lives. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman in charge of this Vote will explain more in detail than he has done the saving in connection with Uganda amounting to £59,990. I understand that the reason for bringing this token Vote before the Committee is to get the authority of the House for this additional expenditure, although on the total sum issued from the Treasury nothing more is really required. I understand that no extra sum is required, but that a fresh authorisation is required to devote this saving to another purpose. Really, this £34,000 is what we are dealing with, and £26,000 has practically gone in the difference in the exchange. The real sum we are dealing with is £34,000 which is left over from the original Estimate.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I wish to ask a question about the difference in the exchange value of the rupee. I understand it has gone against us in Somaliland, but it has apparently gone in our favour in Mesopotamia. We understand that the War Office has been enabled to postpone for some time the Supplementary Estimate for Mesopotamia, because the rupee has fallen or risen in value, and that is in our favour. How is it that fluctuations in the exchange value of, I presume, the same Indian rupee benefit the War Office in regard to Mesopotamia and, I suppose, the Secretary of State for India, but, apparently, hit the Colonial Office in Somaliland. It is rather puzzling, and if the right hon. Gentleman could explain that I think we would all be very much the wiser. With regard to the saving of £60,000 in Uganda, the words used by the Under-Secretary were that they were a postponement of certain expenditure, and
I was rather disappointed, because I thought there had been a saving, and I was prepared to congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the one Government Department that apparently had been able to make a saving. I hope the saving has not been made in some necessary service, because life out there is particularly hard for our officials, and I hope the saving has not been made by cheese-scraping in any of the amenities that these officials enjoy. I would rather like to know what these postponements are and whether they could not have been postponed indefinitely, because we are in such a state that even £60,000 is something.
Before we vote this money I should like to ask, have we really settled what part of Somaliland we are going to hold? It is being run at a loss to-day. The revenue and the expenditure do not balance, and I do not think it will ever be run at a profit. It is a desert country, and I doubt whether it will ever be worth the expenditure of a European administration, especially as regards the interior. It may be necessary to hold the coast line for stategic purposes—I am not discussing that—but is there anything in the rumours that there is going to be a readjustment of frontiers between Italian Somaliland and British Somaliland? The Committee ought to know that, because it will affect future expenditure. Our Italian friends have been pressing for readjustments in their favour, on the ground that the mandatory areas made over to Italy have not been so favourable as those made over to this country and France. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman may be able to tell the House whether anything is settled, and, above all, what is our policy? Are we going to push on any further? We are accused by our enemies on the Continent of trying to push right in there, and to absorb Abyssinia, although I think my right hon. Friend denied it on the Estimates last year. Although we are only asked to vote altogether a sum of £210,000 for Somaliland—and I hope we have got rid of finally the mad Mullah, who was the principal cause of the expenditure then— I do not think we will ever do any good in the interior of the country. The number of packets of troops that we have scattered about in different parts of the world is a danger to the Empire. We have only a certain limit of recruitment in this country, and we ought to cut our
commitments wherever we can, and the interior of Somaliland is one of the places where we can cut our commitments without loss of prestige and without any loss of valuable markets.

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: Having only just entered the Committee, I have not heard the speech of the hon. and gallant Member below me (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), but I gather that he has advocated that the hinterland of Somaliland could be evacuated. If that be so, I venture to support the hon. and gallant Gentleman in the appeal he has addressed to the Government. I carry my mind back to 1911, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ilkeston (Major-General Seely) was Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, and, if my memory serves me correctly, he recommended that Somaliland should be evacuated. A great deal of water has flown under the bridges since those days, and, if anything, the reasons why the hinterland of Somaliland should be evacuated are stronger and more insistent than at that time. It may be true to say that there are naval advantages in retaining a portion of the coast line, but what is the strategic advantage or any other advantage to this country in remaining in possession of Somaliland to the extent that we do at the present day 1, for one, fail to understand. In 1911 a sum of £210,000 was not a sum that occasioned much comment or aroused much opposition, but in these days it is a very considerable sum, and very good arguments ought to be brought forward by the Government if they are to substantiate the expenditure of such a sum in the retention of the hinterland of Somaliland. I venture to suggest to the Government that they should withdraw all troops from Somaliland, retaining only Berbera, and, if necessary, the coast line. If they were to carry out some such policy as this it would very largely reduce this Estimate of £210,000 which is now necessary as a grant-in-aid of local revenues. Can the hon. Gentleman inform the House if there is any reason from the point of view of commerce or trade why we should remain in Somali land, or from the strategic point of view? If he can do so, that will alter the situation. If he cannot do so, then I beg to move the reduction of this Vote by £10, in order to elicit from him whether or not
there is any good reason why we should retain the hinterland of Somaliland at the present time.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir E. Cornwall): That would be a negative.

Dr. MURRAY: Can the hon. Gentleman finally assure the House that the Mullah is disposed of? The Mullah seems to have not a human life but the nine lives of a cat. I have read of his death every year for I do not know how many years past, and I should like to be absolutely assured that he is finally disposed of in some way or another. I do not mind how, whether he has been blown up or killed in some other way, or captured, or put into prison. I should also like to have an assurance that in this part of the world the policy of forced labour is not to be adopted. It seems to be a pity that in some parts of the world where we have influence or exercise a mandate it is apparently a growing practice to have forced labour or slavery in some other form. I want an assurance that in Somaliland, at any rate, these practices will not obtain.

Lieut.-Commander WILLIAMS: I would like a very full explanation of these anticipated savings which are spoken of in connection with Uganda. We ought to be told how they have been brought about. Is it due to a reduction in the number of officials, or is it because your taxation has proved more remunerative than was expected? We should have this information so that we may act upon it in other Departments. Then I would like to be told if these anticipated savings are in any way due to a change in silver currency. We have been told it is postponed expenditure. I do not see how that can be an anticipated saving. If it is postponed expenditure, why was it ever entertained? If it can now be put on one side it surely need not have been proposed in the first instance, and why the hon. Gentleman in charge of this Vote—working his Department as efficiently as we know he does—should have proposed it I cannot understand. Why should we expend the money at all? Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will explain that in due course. As regards Somaliland, I am far from wishing to hold a vast tract of more or less barren land, which has been known to the public
chiefly through the exploits of the Mad Mullah, but, before we make up our minds either to hold or to abandon it, we should be told clearly and definitely, first of all, what its value may be from the point of view of trade purposes, and whether there is any possibility—I do not think there is—of opening up through the country access for trading purposes to any other part of Africa; and, secondly, whether it is necessary to hold any part of it, either temporarily or otherwise, for the purposes of protecting prospective trade routes in the future. I doubt that, but the Committee should be given the position clearly, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman has much fuller information on the subject than we have. Can he also tell us the exact number of troops, the details of the garrisons, and the probable expenditure upon them in the future? We are told, for example, that certain works have to be done in other parts of the world; is there any proposal, either on the coast or inland, involving capital expenditure here? We have a right to know in full detail what is going to be the Government policy as regards Somaliland in the immediate future.

Major-General SEELY: As I have had a good deal to do with Somaliland, I may be permitted to address a few words to the Committee on this matter. We now have a Supplementary Estimate for Somaliland, but we have a saving elsewhere. I put it to the Committee that, if it had not been for the wise disposition of His Majesty's Forces in Somaliland, we should, instead of this small sum, have had several hundred thousand pounds to deal with. I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Kincardine (Lieut.-Colonel A. Murray) that it is undesirable to attempt to hold Somaliland with small garrisons here and there, and that that will only involve us in continuous and increasing expenditure without any corresponding advantage to this country. In Somaliland, however, we had the first proof of the power of the Air Service, when it is used, as it should be, as an independent arm. My right hon. Friend beside me (Sir D. Maclean) whispers "Mesopotamia," and on another occasion I shall hope to develop that theme; but here we have a most striking example. After much argument—and my hon. and gallant Friend opposite deserves credit for this—it was given to the Air Service, but, in the press of other matters, in-
sufficient notice was taken of it. It is not untrue to say, however, that this country was saved at least £1,000,000 in Somaliland alone by the use of the Air Service, directed by the Air Service. Had we adopted this method elsewhere, we might have saved, not £1,000,000, but many millions. Here, at last, we have done it. We are grateful to my hon. Friend (Lieut. -Colonel Amery) for having secured the adoption of what I call the modern policy in Somaliland of holding on to the coast, where our Navy can always secure us from being involved in wild adventures which we find it difficult to carry through. From that secure base we can work with the Air Service on a far more humane method, in the long run, by saying to those with whom we are dealing, "If you will agree to our reasonable proposition, if you will maintain the pax Britannica, all will be well. If not, we can continue, not only to embarrass you, but even to terrify you, and to shoot you down from the air." If we adopt that wise policy elsewhere we shall save ourselves millions of pounds and thousands of lives. Somaliland was evacuated on my advice, as I was representing the Government at the time, and I was denounced in the House of Lords by Lord Curzon for having followed that policy. "We all know now that the policy of His Majesty's Government at that date was sound, and that it was a ridiculous thing to attempt to hold on to Shech and other villages beyond. I trust that my hon. Friend (Lieut.-Colonel Amery) will not be led by old-fashioned militarists— and there is always that danger unless he protests—into again following on the Mesopotamian plan of advancing little packets of infantry into that country in the hope that by so doing you may establish a claim here and a claim there, and gradually extend your influence. That is not the way to do things nowadays. We congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the great success- of an entirely new, more humane, and wiser policy, using modern methods, which are more economical and more effective, and we hope that he will tell his colleagues that this Committee applauds his action and hopes that others will follow suit.

Sir F. BANBURY: I am glad to hear that the Government have done something well and have saved some money. It is the first occasion for a considerable
time that I have ever heard those two things attributed to this Government. Am I right in thinking that the policy of the right hon. Gentleman (Major-General Seely) has been carried out by himself, or that my hon. Friend (Lieut.-Colonel Amery) has himself carried out this policy which has been so successful?

Major-General SEELY: My hon. Friend.

Sir F. BANBURY: I am glad to hear that it was carried out by my hon. Friend, I presume, on the advice of the right hon. Gentleman. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) did not know whether the rupee had gone up or down. It has done both. Silver rose from somewhere about 24d. to the ounce to nearly 80d., and it has now gone down to somewhere about 60d. per ounce.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: What I wanted to know, and perhaps the right hon. Baronet can inform me, is this: Why is it that on the fluctuation of the rupee the Colonial Office loses money and the War Office gains money?

Sir F. BANBURY: I suppose it was because the exchange operations took place at two different times. That is the only solution which I can think of. I rose to put two questions to my hon. Friend, and I am surprised that they have not been asked before. In the footnote there is this statement:
The expenditure out of this Grant-in-Aid will not be accounted for in detail to the Comptroller and Auditor-General,
Why not?
but he will be furnished by the Colonial Office with the audited accounts and with any report of the Director of Colonial Audit thereon.
Why should not the Grant-in-Aid be accounted for in detail by the Comptroller and Auditor-General? He is an officer appointed by this House. The only people to whom he is responsible is the Committee of Public Accounts. The result of these sums being accounted for by him has always been satisfactory. He has to appear before the Committee. They issue a report which I hope is read by all Members, and they show where the official has mismanaged, if he has done so, the money granted by Parliament. Personally, I attach, and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman for Paisley (Mr.
Asquith) would agree with me in this, very great importance to the preservation of this check on the public expenditure We have not very many checks, but the check by the Comptroller and Auditor-General is the best one which we have got.
The foot note goes on to say:
no surrender will be made at the close of the year of such sum as may be issued out of the Grant-in-Aid.
That is directly contrary to all precedents in connection with the financial control of this House. It has always been held that money not spent at the end of the financial year must be returned to the Treasury. Personally, I think that that is a very sound doctrine. In times past I think everybody, from Mr. Gladstone down, held that though there might be arguments against the policy of surrender yet on the whole the greater weight of argument was in favour of it. Even though the Colonial Office has saved some money, that is no reason why it should be exempt from the law which applies to all Government offices. I may be told that there have been occasions of this sort in the case of the Colonial Office in days gone by. I am not sure whether that is right, but, if so, I would say in reply that we are in a very difficult position at present. We are passing through a financial crisis and, although in times gone by we may have granted these facilities to the Colonial Office, we ought not to do so any longer. All the safeguards imposed by our predecessors on the spending of money should be jealously maintained. I see that it is proposed to meet this £60,000 by a saving of £59,900 which is anticipated under sub-head E, "Uganda." I expect that I am right in saying that it is admissible to transfer from one sub-head of the Vote to another sub-head with the consent of the Treasury, but not from Vote to Vote. I presume that the consent of the Treasury has been given.

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: indicated assent.

Sir F. BANBURY: It does not say so, and it would have been more in order if it did. The words are "a saving is anticipated." That means that hon. and gallant Gentleman lives in hopes of this saving taking place. What ground is there for the anticipation?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: I can hardly complain of the reception which this Supplementary Estimate has had. I am certainly very grateful to my right hon. Friend (Major-General Seely) for what he has said about the policy of dealing with the long-standing military difficulty in Somaliland on the line of independent air operations. They certainly were extremely successful. At the same time, personally, I should hesitate a little before drawing too far-reaching conclusions from that fact. The conditions under which the Air Force could strike in such a manner as to see the enemy and be able to disperse him effectively, were extremely favourable, and I should not like the Committee to think that in other circumstances, such as in Mesopotamia, the conditions were such that what was done in Somaliland could be as well done here. However, that is not my province. The operations were undoubtedly a very complete success. In answer to the hon. Member opposite (Dr. Murray), I would say that the Mullah escaped, and only just escaped with three followers, while the rest of his family and followers were taken prisoners. At this moment the Mullah is well in the interior of Abyssinia without any following, and is not in any position to hurt us. The whole of Somaliland is now in a peaceful and undisturbed condition.
I am not proposing to traverse in any way the wisdom of the decision of my right hon. and gallant Friend (Major-General Seely) and the Government of the day with regard to the withdrawal to the coast in Somaliland. They were dealing with an active and troublesome enemy, and an attempt to hold a large and disturbed country would have required the splitting up of a very considerable force, with no real security anywhere, and with very considerable expense. The condition of affairs now is very different. The whole force employed in the so-called operations was in any case a very small one. We increased the local mounted constabulary from 450 to something like 600 men, and we borrowed a battalion of the King's African Rifles from East Africa. That battalion has gone back. The constabulary have been reduced, I believe, to the original figure; at any rate, there will be a reduction on the pre-operations military expenditure of something like £27,000 a year. I hope it may be possible to carry that further.
On the other hand, the revenue, even of the portion of Somaliland that we held, and held back to the Abyssinian frontier, before these operations, was growing very satisfactorily, and Sir Geoffrey Archer, to whom credit is mainly due for all that has been done in Somaliland, is confident, now that peace is restored, that without any attempt to introduce an elaborate administration, or to set up a number of officials all over the interior of the country, there will be a steady increase of revenue and the resumption of, trade. It is not altogether fair to Somaliland or to ourselves to treat that country as a desert and uninhabited. There is a great deal of very good stock country. Some of the coast region is suited even to cotton-growing. I do not see any reason why we should despair of the future economic value of Somaliland and of its capacity to pay for its own administration, any more than in the case of many another part of the Empire which at the present moment is very successful and more than paying its way, and which not so long ago was described as utterly valueless. I remember when the late Mr. Henry Labouchere described the whole of the interior of West Africa as a hopeless and unprofit able wilderness which would never cover the expenses of the carrying on of the administration. We have never yet had anything in the nature of even the most cursory geological survey of Somaliland, but there have been extremely favourable indications of oil, and investigation is now being carried on. There may be other minerals, and it is worth while spending a little to find out what assets you have really got in order to develop a reasonable administration there without cost to this House. Personally, I have every confidence, now that peace is restored, that in a reasonable number of years even Somaliland, which has long been a burden to the British taxpayer, will pay the cost of its own administration. The hon. Member for the Western Isles asked a question about forced labour. I demur strongly to the suggestion that we are introducing anything in the nature of slavery anywhere, and I can assure the hon. Member that there is no question of forced labour in any form or in any shape in Somaliland. The hon and gallant Mem-
ber for Hull (Lieut-Commander Ken-worthy) put a conundrum as to why the rupee has been the occasion for extra expenditure to the Colonial Office and a source of economy and saving to the War Office. I can only hazard the conjecture that it is due to the variation of the rupee, and that in the case of the War Office that the rupee stood high when the particular estimate was made, and there was a saving from the subsequent fall. As the hon. and gallant Member knows, during the last four or five months the rupee, which had previously soared to 2s. lid., has steadily fallen, and at this moment stands in the neighbourhood, I think, of Is. 5½d. As to the question about the footnotes raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City (Sir F. Banbury), I confess frankly this was not an innovation introduced at my instance or at the instance of the Colonial Office in my time. I always understood that these grants-in-aid were given in that form. As to the footnote about a saving being anticipated, it is possible that the language is not as clear as might be wished. The anticipation refers to the amount; there is no doubt about there being a saving. We put down the sum of £59,990, and we preserved the right of the House over any change from this sub-head to any other. As regards the actual nature of the saving, the position is this: There are certain public and other works, which the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull rightly described as amenities, in connection with educational institutions and other things, for which Uganda is getting a loan from the Treasury, though that loan is actually appearing in the form of a grant-in-aid, but in connection with a change in the annual accounts of the Uganda Protectorate this expenditure has been postponed from the beginning of the year till after 31st March, and the postponement of this borrowing will involve on this year's Estimates a saving sufficient, and I think a little more than sufficient, to cover the £60,000 in question.

Sir D. MACLEAN: Then there has not been a saving, but only a postponed payment?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: It is a saving on this year's Estimates, but something corresponding will appear in next year's Estimates.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I think it would have been very much better to have
allowed the Uganda postponed payment to fall back into the General Fund and to have taken the thing on a proper business basis as an extra payment out of the Treasury. The method followed in this case is mixing up two things, and I do not take nearly so favourable a view of the transaction, from a business point of view, as I did before. I think it is wrong to mix up the accounts of Somali-land and Uganda in this way.

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: I quite see my right hon. Friend's point, but if he will look at the smaller print on the Paper he will see that the figure that matters to the Committee is the £2,815,248, and that represents the position quite exactly. I venture to think that, whichever way it is put, the position finally has been made perfectly clear to the Committee.

Major-General SEELY: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has not answered my question. I expressed the hope, which I think is shared by the Committee generally, that the hon. and gallant Gentleman, who has scored so great a success in these operations, will not fall into the error of now going back to the old-fashioned way of dotting Somaliland with small infantry garrisons. Will he tell us if we are going to hold this place in what I believe to be the common-sense way, by concentrating whatever forces we have near the coast—you will have your political officers in the interior—and by not attempting to garrison with small bodies of infantry six or eight different districts?

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: The hon. and gallant Gentleman did not really answer the main point put to him. He rode off by suggesting that it was necessary to spend £210,000 a year on Somaliland in order to carry out a geological survey.

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: No!

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: That certainly was the impression left on the Committee. The question I put to him was: Could the British Government withdraw from Berbera and the hinterland? If not, will he indicate whether there is any reason, from the point of view of trade, commerce or strategy, why we should continue in the hinterland of Somaliland and spend this vast amount of money? We are constantly
asked by the Government to indicate ways in which money can be saved. When we come down here and show how money can be saved, the hon. and gallant Gentleman gives no answer at all.

Lieut.-Commander KENWO RTHY: We get very few opportunities of asking what the Government policy is. One day we are told we cannot debate matters because they are under discussion and the next day we are told we cannot discuss them because they have been settled. I would respectfully ask for an answer on this question of Somaliland. What is being done there? The Italian papers were full of it a little time ago, and, after all, it is a part of the world which is at present under British protection.

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: I apologise for not having answered the point, but there is no question of an alteration of the boundaries of Somaliland. As regards the main question put by the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I must also apologise for not making myself sufficiently clear, though I confess that I thought I had done so. I tried to say that I thought it would be an unwise policy in dealing with a disturbed country full of hostile forces, such as Somaliland was at the period referred to, to scatter infantry posts about. There is no question of scattering infantry forces about anywhere in the interior, except the smallest detachment at Berbera itself. There is a small force of mounted Constabulary which is now able to preserve peace all over Somaliland and to enable the trade of the country, which was already very satisfactorily developing before the recent operations, to develop further. My belief is that that trade will very soon develop to a point at which the normal expenditure and income of Somaliland will begin to approximate, and that eventually the income will cover the expenditure. There is no question of our spending £210,000 a year. That sum covers the actual cost of the whole of these most successful operations. In a normal year the deficit will be not only a much smaller one, but I hope a very rapidly decreasing one. I am confident that much of the resources of Somaliland which have been decried in the past will, with the general peace and the development of trade, including fisheries, minerals, and possibly even cotton plantations in certain of the better watered regions, be so developed that
that part of the Empire will lapse into the position of so many other parts and will be very rarely heard of in this House, and that the ordinary Budget will be sufficient to carry on such administration as may be adequate for maintaining law and order and ensuring the gradual progress and well-being of that country.

Major-General SEELY: There are no sedentary garrisons in the interior?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: No sedentary garrisons.

Question put, and agreed to.

(CLASS 6.)

MISSION OF HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS THE DUKE OF CONNAUGHT TO INDIA.

Motion made, and Question proposed.
That a sum, not exceeding £8,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1921, as a Grant in Aid of the Mission of His Royal Highness the Duke of Connaught to India.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I am certain the Committee very much appreciates the action of His Royal Highness the Duke of Connaught in undertaking this mission to India. It is entirely typical of his unfailing devotion to public duty. We much regret that his Royal Highness the Prince of Wales is unable, owing to the strenuous nature of his very valuable and prolonged services in other parts of the Empire, to fulfil his contemplated mission to India; but we are quite confident that in so far as his place can be taken, it is amply and most efficiently taken by the Duke of Connaught. There is a footnote to the Vote which says that certain expenses in connection with the Vote will be defrayed from the Navy Vote. What is the total expense? If that can be communicated, I shall be glad.

Mr. BALDWIN: I may tell my right hon. Friend and the Committee that it does not mean that any further money will have to be asked of the Admiralty, but I am afraid that, until the journey is completed, it will be impossible to say what the expenses are. The only expenses that I can tell my right hon. Friend for certain are whatever the extra cost may be of the
steamer which takes His Royal Highness to India over and above what she would have consumed had she been employed all the time. I understand that the Suez Canal dues will amount to £3,000, and there are being incurred certain expenses in providing suitable accommodation for the party, which numbers 13. That expenditure will probably be a matter of about £4,000. That is the whole of the information at present in my possession, but at a later date, I am sure, the total information will be obtainable from the Admiralty, when they know what the expenses of the journey are.

Question put, and agreed to.

(CLASS 7.)

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE COMMISSION (IRELAND).

Motion made, and Question proposed:
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £68,540, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1921, for the salaries and expenses of the Insurance Commission (Ireland), and for sundry contributions and grants in respect of the cost of benefits and expenses of administration under the National Insurance (Health) Acts, 1911 to 1920 (including certain Grants in Aid).

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: There is one item likely to be rather controversial, and I want to ask the Government—
It being Eleven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.
The, remaining Government Orders were read, and postponed.
Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir E. Cornwall), pursuant to the Order of the House of 19th October, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at One minute after Eleven o'clock.